Tuesday, 15 November 1983 The House met at 2 p.m. The Clerk-I inform the House of the absence of the Speaker, who is on parliamentary business overseas. In accordance with standing order 14, the Chairman of Committees, as Acting Speaker, will take the Chair. Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. Les Johnson) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers . Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General a commission authorising me, during any absence of the Speaker, to administer to members the oath or affirmation of allegiance. I now lay the commission on the Table. Return to Writ Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has received a return to the writ which he issued on 12 October 1983, for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Moreton in the State of Queensland, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Sir James Killen, KCMG. By the endorsement on the writ, it is certified that Donald Milner Cameron has been elected. New Member Sworn Mr Donald Milner Cameron made and subscribed the oath of allegiance as member for the division of Moreton, Queensland. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) left Australia on 12 November to resume leadership of a parliamentary delegation and to hold discussions in London, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Tokyo. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is Acting Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is Acting Minister for Administrative Services and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce until Mr Brown returns. I also inform the House that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) left Australia on 11 November-- Opposition members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —I realise that will leave a void for many of us. He left to attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference in Japan and to hold discussions in Korea on high technology industries. We do not know what will come home in that right hand pocket after that. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is Acting Minister for Science and Technology until Mr Jones returns. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) serious allegations of intimidation against Australian Labor Party members of this Parliament remain uncontradicted after 11 days; and (b) matters of parliamentary privilege must be dealt with promptly; and (2) calls upon the Government to now call on for debate notice of motion No. 261, General Business, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Denison to refer this scandal to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee for inquiry and report. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes the success of the National Football League in developing international competition for Australian Rules Football; and (2) congratulates Dr Allen Aylett, the president of the National Football League and his committee, Mr Paddy Buggy and Mr Liam Mulvihill from the Irish- Gaelic Athletic Association, and the Irish Ambassador to Australia, Mr Joseph Small, for their work in fostering overseas competition for Australia's premier football code with the proposed Irish-Australian matches. Mr HICKS(Riverina) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) civilian operated radar assisted surveillance flights over Australia's north-west coast have been suspended since March, and (b) exotic diseases such as foot and mouth, Newcastle disease, rabies and screw worm, are endemic on Timor which is less than 500 kms north of Australia and that the introduction of any of these would have disastrous effects on the Australian livestock industry; (2) asks the Government to act urgently on submissions sent to it in August by the Northern Territory Government, warning of the danger posed to Australian primary industry from exotic diseases; and (3) calls on the Government to reinstate full surveillance flights with appropriate radar equipped aircraft as a matter of extreme urgency. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the success of the Government's First Home Owners Scheme in terms of inquiries and applications from the public; (2) recognises that recovery is now under way in the housing industry; (3) notes the recent reductions in housing interest rates being charged by building societies and some banks; and (4) calls on other banks and building societies to reduce their rates on new and existing loans at the earliest opportunity. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its particular concern for the future of retirees with assets other than their house, cars, jewellery and boat; (2) demands- (a) detailed Government consideration of the equity between retirees with savings, investments, property or superannuation and their access to the pensioner health benefit card or the full pension; and (b) the personal circumstances of home owners, renters and residents of nursing homes receive equitable attention; and (3) deplores the fear, stress and apprehension being caused to retirees by the Government's consideration of an assets test; and (4) requests the Government to abandon the proposal. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) will second: That this House calls upon the Hawke Government to honour its firm election commitment to create a permanent adult migrant service, and to forthwith transfer all full-time casual teachers to the permanent service. Mr PUNCH(Barton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes the successful Lebanese Solidarity Convention held in Sydney on the weekend of 12-13 November whereby all Lebanese communities met to discuss the common problems of Lebanese migrants in Australia and in so doing reaffirmed that the bitterness of their native land will not be allowed to be pursued in Australia. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its failure to assist the small business sector through any measures either in the May Economic Statement or the 1983-84 Budget; (2) notes that the Government's pre-election promise to immediately implement an Australian Small Business Action Program has not been actioned; and (3) urges the Government, as a matter of priority, to develop a program of action and designate 1984 as the Year of Small Business in Australia. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that yet another Queenslander has distinguished himself by a notable national feat; and (2) congratulates Carl Rackemann, born near Kingaroy in Queensland, on his magnificent contribution to Australia's cricket test win over Pakistan in Perth. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its acceptance of above indexation wage claims by building unions and supported by coerced employers; (2) denounces the Government's postponement of deregistration proceedings against the Builders Labourers Federation when at the same time supporting wage rises; and (3) gives notice that the way to industrial peace cannot be achieved by giving way to blackmail. Mr ANTHONY —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Was the subject of developing country preferences for Korean steel exports to Australia to have been a major issue during the visit to Australia of the President of the Republic of Korea, which was postponed following the tragic bomb explosion in Rangoon? Have there been any further discussions between the governments of Australia and the Republic of Korea on this issue? Does the Minister acknowledge the concern of Australian exporters that limitations on Korean exports to Australia could restrict our ability to export our products to Korea? Mr LIONEL BOWEN — The question related generally to developing country preferences and in particular the Government's decision to announce what it would call specific mechanisms for the steel industry. Honourable gentlemen would know that my colleague Senator Button had discussions in respect of that industry not only in Australia but also with the Koreans. As far as I am aware, they understand the situation perfectly. It is true that just prior to the tragic deaths of members of the President's party some of them were here and had discussions with the honourable senator and me. I would not put any special significance on the question of steel. There was a general discussion as to how best trade between our two countries could be maintained and improved. It was then agreed that these matters would be the subject of further detailed discussion when the President arrived. That visit, tragically, has had to be delayed. At present, in fairness to the thrust of what the honourable gentleman has said, we have had no special complaints about this matter from Korea. Mr REEVES —Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Federal Government's decision to transfer title of Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park to the Aboriginal traditional owners will not jeopardise tourist access and, specifically, the development of the Yulara tourist scheme? Mr HAWKE —I can provide these assurances to the honourable member: The decision of the Government in regard to the Uluru National Park explicitly provides for a lease-back arrangement to be negotiated with the relevant Aboriginal land trust to ensure the continuation of the Uluru National Park. It also provides for an advisory board to be established, comprising representatives-and I ask the House to notice the wide range of representation on that advisory board-of the Commonwealth Parliament, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Northern Territory Conservation Commission, the Aboriginal traditional owners and the Northern Territory tourist industry. That advisory board will provide policy guidance for the management and operation of the park. I believe that all members of the House will be pleased to know that today the members of the Central Land Council and the Pitjantjatjara Land Council welcomed the arrangements announced by the Government. I had hoped that the Opposition would welcome them too. Most importantly, the Central Land Council and the Pitjantjatjara Land Council specifically stated today that the arrangements announced pose no threat to tourist access to Ayers Rock and Uluru National Park. They specifically welcome the Yulara project. It is significant, I suggest, that the House should note that in Canberra in July 1982 the Chief Minister indicated the willingness of his Government to grant secure title of Uluru National Park to the Aboriginal traditional owners although, of course, it must be remembered that the park has always been owned by the national government. In these circumstances we are very much entitled to ask ourselves just what it is that the Chief Minister is about. It is quite clear that he is callously seeking to develop this into an election issue, whatever the consequences for the development of the tourist industry of the Northern Territory. So that it can be quite clear even in the minds of members of the Opposition as to how this matter has been callously manipulated by the Chief Minister against the interests- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I cite three documents to establish the point I make. The first is a telex sent to me yesterday by Mr Everingham. It states in part: Your decision on Uluru National Park has jeopardised- and I ask every honourable member to note what the Chief Minister was saying to me yesterday- delicate financial negotiations to raise massive international borrowings to finance construction of the Yulara tourist village. That is the first document. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Honourable members should wait until they hear the next two documents. We will see whether they make so much noise then. The second document is a telex also sent yesterday from a Mr Roger Davis of the Brisbane office of Citicorp Australia Holdings Ltd to the Under-Secretary of the Northern Territory Treasury . I understand that the full text of this telex was handed out yesterday by the Chief Minister at a Press conference in Darwin. This is document no. 2. Let us listen carefully to this one: At this stage I believe it is sufficient for your purposes- Mr Davis prefaced his remarks by referring to the telephone conversation that had taken place earlier in the morning. This is the follow-up collusive telex-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Opposition members should wait until they hear the third document and they will not be oohing and ahing. The second document, the telex from Mr Roger Davis to the Under-Secretary, states: At this stage I believe it is sufficient for your purposes to appreciate that the banks will probably be unwilling to advance funds to Yulara until they have sighted and approved the proposed lease arrangements with the Aboriginals . . . I trust this helps you in your discussions this morning. Whilst we are both optimistic and believe common sense will prevail I think we may have a long wait on our hands. He says in conclusion: These comments are dictated in a hurry and I hope they are acceptable. What is quite clear is that this was an attempt at collusion masterminded by the Chief Minister and his officials without any concern for the interests of the Northern Territory. That brings me to the third document. Fortunately the Chairman of Citicorp Australia is not prepared to let his bank be used as part of this cheap political exercise by Mr Everingham. In a Press statement released late this morning and-- Mr Howard —Did you get Keating to offer him a licence? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to order . Mr HAWKE —I hope the interjection will be recorded in Hansard. That is a measure of the morality of honourable members opposite. That may be a method of operation with which the Opposition is acquainted but it is not our method. In this statement, which is a clear repudiation of the Chief Minister's duplicity, this is what has been advised by the Chairman of Citicorp: Firstly, the recently announced change of ownership of the Uluru National Park should not change the underlying security arrangements for foreign loans for the project. Secondly, the bridging finance already committed would continue to be available provided the Northern Territory Government and its corporation continue to support the Yulara tourist scheme. Finally, Citicorp and the other banks involved in the project are still working towards the original deadline of 24 November for signing the international syndicated term facility. I call on the Chief Minister to explain to the people of Australia why he has been prepared, in his handling of this matter, deliberately to attempt to sabotage a project which will bring employment and enhanced economic activity to the Territory. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Minister for Trade to moves by the Government of California to impose its new so-called unitary tax on foreign companies operating in that State, including Australian firms. What response has the Government had to the official protest that it made to the United States Government on this issue? Does the Minister agree that so-called unitary taxes, which are being considered in other American States as well, have serious implications for trade relations between Australia and the United States? What further action does the Government propose to protect Australian firms from such measures? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition is a very important one indeed. The State of California has imposed what is called unitary tax. This means that, for the first time, Australian firms would be obliged to pay tax even if they are operating at a loss in that State. This new unitary tax mechanism means that where a company is operating not only in California but also elsewhere in the world, the earnings of the company across the world will be taken into consideration and a percentage of profit will be apportioned to it in respect of its operations in that State. The Australian Government has been very concerned. The Embassy of Australia made representations to the Department of State, if my memory serves me correctly, on 24 October or somewhere about that date. At this stage all I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that the United States Government has replied that the matter is under consideration. I cannot offer anything more satisfactory than that. We are very concerned and we have made, through our Embassy in Washington, representations to the United States Government. Mr Peacock —Will you follow up? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I undertake to do that. We will follow it up. It really amounts to what is called the double taxation of income derived from Australian sources of Australian companies carrying on business. We have a taxation agreement with the United States. This seems to be the problem. A decision in the American Supreme Court on this matter has been upheld. On that score we have the problem that a State instrumentality is deemed to be able to pass this mechanism. It would affect the whole concept of trade. It would certainly be aimed at Australian corporations in the United States. One would hope that the United States, particularly through its Treasury influences, would realise the serious implications that would flow from what the honourable gentleman has raised. Ms FATIN —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the significant rise in average weekly earnings that will take place over the next 12 months, pushing many people into higher tax brackets, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that early consideration will be given to the reform of personal income taxation to ease the burden on ordinary wage and salary earners? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Canning for her very important question. I believe she will know, and all honourable members will know, that the Government is strongly committed to the reform of the existing taxation system so that we can move towards a fairer and more efficient tax base . As the honourable member will know, the Government has already taken a number of steps particularly in regard to the tax avoidance industry which, unfortunately to this stage, have been frustrated by the actions of the Opposition in its protection of the tax avoidance industry in this country. The Leader of the Opposition has been vainly trying to make some sort of capital out of the tax initiatives that he would introduce if ever he were to be in government. I know that particularly the honourable member who asked this question would have noticed the report in the latest issue of the National Times that the Opposition Leader is reported to be looking very seriously at the flat rate tax system. I also notice from that report that Professor Walsh, one of the leading economic advisers to the previous Prime Minister, has been resurrected. Let me make it quite clear here and now, as far as this Government is concerned , that any move towards the flat rate tax system would be a giant step backwards for this country. It is quite clear-indeed we say it is a fundamental principle- that people should pay tax according to their ability to pay and those on higher incomes should clearly have a greater ability to pay. A simple flat rate tax would disadvantage those in the community on lower incomes. For example, to assume the same total revenue, if a flat rate tax were applied to all income, the annual tax bill of people with taxable incomes of $200 a week would be increased by $400 per annum. I remind the House of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had to say about the flat rate tax proposal. On 7 February 1981 he was reported as saying that flat rate taxation would 'unfairly and severely disadvantage those in the community least able to afford a ''massive'' taxation increase'. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: 'It simply doesn't work. It has the element of the fairyland about it'. That is the clear position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He says that this concept has the air of the fairyland about it and he is certainly right on that. We will wait with interest to see whether the Leader of the Opposition once again disagrees with his deputy and whether it is another case of the Leader of the Opposition being manipulated by the National Party of Australia whose leader in this place has expressed support for the flat rate concept. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Is it a fact that since March the honourable gentleman has greatly tightened the procedures in operation for export coal contracts? Can the Government point to any increase in sales as a consequence of this tightening up of export control procedures on coal? Finally, is he concerned that, in fact, Australian coal exporters may be losing sales to competitive suppliers as a result of the delays and obstruction inherent in the tightening procedures authorised by the Minister? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This is the first I have ever heard of any complaints of delays in procedures-- Mr Howard —Tightening up. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Or any tightening up. Mr Howard —No tightening up? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a different procedure. Let us get it into perspective. The complaint, I understood, was that we were affecting the sales of coal because of delays in tightening up. Let me answer that in this way: We have sold more coal than ever at a better price than the previous Government. That is the first point. I do not know whether the honourable member ever wants to tighten up a business that is going broke, but it is important that this is done. If the honourable member is always going to agree with what the Japanese offer him-- Mr Howard —No. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Oh yes. The honourable member is shaking his head now, but the only reason for what he would call tightening up is to get the Australian producers to come into study groups to determine effectively a reasonable price whereby at least the assets of Australia can be sold at a profit and not at a loss. Mr Howard —So you have tightened up? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. I have a different system altogether. The results are that I have not had one complaint from any company, but I would have had a few silent complaints from the Japanese. I make that very clear. The problem is, as the honourable member knows-I do not want to rake over old coals-that the parameters set by my distinguished predecessor who is sitting alongside the honourable member could not be met. So, is the honourable member talking about tightening up to the extent that he would expect that both he and I would be able to guarantee that the Japanese would always pay the price he fixed by a parameter? That does not happen. I do not see much merit in just fixing parameters which cannot be readily agreed upon, so the only difference in the approach has been to get coal producers in Australia to meet in advance as to what they would regard as being reasonable parameters to fix for the whole of their industry. There will be a lot of difficulties in the industry because of the opening up of so many new mines and a surplus of coal. In fact, in the last few months we have sold as much coal as ever, if not more coal than ever. But one must agree that the price mechanism is not always able to be on an increasing scale; it has to be related to what one would call a fair market scale. In my view it is the only intelligent way to operate. I think I have dealt with something in excess of 800 different submissions on coal exports, all of which would have a price differential parameter because of the quality of the coal or the nature of the contract. I am surprised that the honourable gentleman thinks anything difficult is being done. I find that the industry is able to react quite well. In fact, it is much better to have Australians determining what the parameters might be instead of waiting in an hotel room in Tokyo to be called up one by one as to what price they might be given. That is the difference. If tightening up means that Australians, for once, begin to act in the national interest and not in the interests of the Japanese, I am all in favour of tightening up. Mr SCOTT —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the attitude of the Aboriginal community to the transfer of Ayers Rock, particularly in respect of tourist access and enjoyment? Mr HOLDING —I am aware of the attitude of the Aboriginal people in terms of their claims based upon a spiritual and religious attitude towards Ayers Rock. I am certain the shadow Minister is aware of it and I hope that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory would be aware of it because these are claims that have been made to former Ministers of the Commonwealth Government and to the Government of the Northern Territory. I am certain that when the Chief Minister said, in July 1982, that it was the policy of his Government to give Ayers Rock back to the Aborigines he understood the nature of the claims that were being made by Aboriginal people. I am bound to say that over the last 48 hours I have been concerned, as I am certain men of conscience would be concerned, about the way in which the claims of Aboriginal people have been subject to deliberate distortion and to malevolent misrepresentation by people who hope to make some kind of political capital out of misrepresenting the attitude of Aboriginal people on this issue. I was instructed by the Cabinet to open discussions with the Aboriginal owners. Mr Howard —You are very sensitive. Mr HOLDING —I am sensitive. I am sorry that the honourable gentleman lacks sensitivity on this issue. If the honourable gentleman wants to show his sensitivity he would begin well by shutting up and listening. Mr Howard —That shows how paternalistic you are. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will answer the question. Mr HOLDING —This pack of boy scouts has enough decency to wear long trousers. Thank God for that. Because I was instructed by Cabinet to spell out the heads of agreement with Aboriginal people, I entered into discussions with Mr John Coldrey, the Director of Legal Services for the Central Land Council. He informed me that a meeting would be conducted today with members of the Pitjantjatjara Council and members of the Central Land Council and that they would discuss these issues. As a result I have received a telex which sets out fully the attitudes and the hopes of Aboriginal people in respect of Ayers Rock and their perception of its role in their lives, and at the same time the way in which they believe it ought to be developed, both in terms of their perceived interests and the interests of all Australians. I will read that telex without comment because I believe it gives everybody an opportunity to understand the attitude of the Aboriginal people on this matter. It states: The CLC and the Pitjantjatjara Council are extremely concerned that the enlightened gesture of the Commonwealth Government in granting Aboriginal people title to Uluru National Park has already been distorted- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOLDING —Mr Acting Speaker, if these gentlemen do not want to keep quiet for me I suggest that they at least have enough regard for the written words of Aboriginal people to keep quiet. They are prepared to distort those words. Honourable members opposite should listen to them. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will continue his answer and the House will come to order. Mr Lusher —This is an abuse of Question Time. Mr Sinclair —This is a ridiculous answer; no wonder you are embarrassed. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is entitled, and indeed has a responsibility, to answer the question. The House will come to order and hear him. Mr HOLDING —The telex goes on: . . . in granting Aboriginal people title to Uluru National Park has already been distorted by the NT Chief Minister Mr Everingham for perceived political advantage. Before the facts are further muddied in the NT election campaign it is essential that the position of the traditional Aboriginal owners is clearly stated. The Aboriginal people have always recognised the legitimate tourist interest in the national park. They have always supported the concepts of leasing back the park to the Commonwealth. They have consistently asserted that the park will always be available for the benefit of all Australians. They have always supported a joint management scheme in which Aboriginal, conservationist and tourist interests would be represented. They have no intention of unreasonably limiting access to Uluru National Park. Basically for the visiting tourist it will be business as usual. Any rare and limited restrictions necessary for ceremonial purposes are likely to be confined to those sites already registered as sacred by the NT Government' s own Sacred Sites Authority (and already subject to restrictions). Such ceremonies should be respected as a vital part of traditional Aboriginal life. The Aboriginal traditional owners believe that Aboriginal ownership and involvement in Uluru substantially enhances the commercial tourist potential of the park. The Yulara project will not be affected by Aboriginal ownership of Uluru. The Aboriginal people have expressed no interest in seeking to operate motels within the national park. Indeed, Aboriginal traditional owners welcome the Yulara project in that it locates tourists away from their local Mutitjulu community and thereby reduces the impact of thousands of tourists a year on their way of life. It follows that the granting of title- Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Sir Billy Snedden would not have allowed the Minister to do what he is doing. My point of order is that in the old days Ministers were never allowed to read at the table as this Minister is doing. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The point of order is not upheld and cannot be sustained by a reading of the Hansard. The Minister will endeavour to bring his answer to a close as soon as possible. Mr HOLDING —The telex continued: It follows that the granting of title to the Aboriginal traditional owners will not jeopardise investment in the Yulara operation. The Hawke initiative is an excellent measure which recognises the long standing spiritual attachment of the Aboriginal people to this area whilst preserving the interests of tourists and conservationists in the park. Mr Wilson —Mr Acting Speaker, I ask the Minister to table the document from which he was reading. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Is the Minister able to table the document? Mr Holding —It is not a confidential document. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I ask the Minister whether he will table the document. Mr Holding —I table the document. Mr PEACOCK —Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations indicate what he had in mind when he urged parties in the building industry to go away and come up with another deal? Does he consider that achieving an increase through the back door method of superannuation payments would be within the wage guidelines? Does he agree that the whole aim of wage restraint is to reduce costs and inflation? If so, how does paying increases in a way which circumvents the guidelines reduce costs and inflation? Mr WILLIS —The question from the Leader of the Opposition is not entirely unexpected. Of course, we have regarded the maintenance of the building industry agreement which the Government supported and which has now been rejected by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as important for industrial relations purposes. The parties have been through a negotiating process for a long time in an industry which has been marked by great industrial turmoil in the past, and this agreement offered the prospect of two years of industrial peace. In suggesting that this matter could go before the Commission under the anomalies provision, we said to the Commission that our support for the agreement was on the basis that the Commission found that there was no likelihood of its flowing on beyond the building and construction industry. In the event, the Commission found that it would flow on beyond the building and construction industry and therefore it did not uphold the agreement. That was not a rejection of the Government's position. Our support for the agreement was specifically on the basis that it would not flow on to other industries. I said after the Commission made its decision that we would ask the parties to reconsider ways in which they might still hold this package together. I believe it is in the interests of the country that this agreement should hold together and that the efforts of the parties over such a long period in trying to put together a package which provides the prospect of industrial peace should not be allowed to dissipate. The parties are to report back to the Commission on 22 November. One of the ways in which the parties could possibly consider achieving the objectives of the package would be to consider a superannuation package for the industry. This, in fact, was in contemplation in the agreement. One of the provisions of the agreement was that, after a year's delay, there would be negotiation of a superannuation scheme. We are suggesting to the parties-some of them have already thought of it-that they could bring that provision forward and try to establish a superannuation scheme much more quickly than had been contemplated originally. That seems to me a way in which the package can be maintained. This is one of the few industries in the country which have virtually no superannuation. It seems to me that this is a way in which the objectives of the package can be maintained and that the wage principles will not be damaged by the establishment of such a superannuation scheme. Mr HOLLIS —Is the Minister for Defence aware of conflict which has arisen between the Royal Australian Navy and the tuna fleet working off the south coast of New South Wales near Nowra? Can he advise the House what steps are being taken to overcome this conflict? Mr SCHOLES —I am aware of the problem to which the honourable gentleman refers, mainly because he has mentioned it to me on a number of occasions, as have the Minister for Primary Industry and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. There was a recent incident in which a tuna fishing spotter aircraft alleged that it was unable to establish radio communications with the naval vessels concerned. As a direct result of this incident the fleet commander has drawn the attention of ships' commanding officers to the need to extend maximum co- operation to this important industry. For some time now, commanding officers have been under instruction to give clearance to spotter aircraft and tuna boats to enter any unused section of restricted area under their control, provided it is safe to do so. The matter is currently the subject of a number of telexes and the fleet commander will be having discussions with those involved at an early date. Mr PORTER —Did the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs receive a submission from the Pitjantjatjara Council in relation to Ayers Rock in April this year? I ask him whether on receipt of the submission he said, as reported by the Northern Territory News: I said I would examine it and take it to Mr Everingham. In view of the fact that yesterday Mr Everingham said: I am staggered that the Federal Government would take such a decision-- he was referring to Ayers Rock- without one word of consultation with the Northern Territory- why did the Minister fail to consult with the Northern Territory Government as he had promised? Mr HOLDING —The claims made by the Aboriginal people around Ayers Rock were made in about March or April. At my first meeting with Mr Everingham I discussed with him the desirability of having a common program of uniform park management in respect of both Ayers Rock and Kakadu National Park because, as the honourable member will be aware, the Northern Territory Government continues to lay claim to Kakadu National Park. I was aware of Mr Everingham's own policy. Mr Hodgman —Did you discuss it? Mr HOLDING —To that extent we were agreed. Mr Everingham in July 1982 in Canberra said that it was the policy of his Government to return-- Mr MacKellar —Did you discuss it or not? Mr HOLDING —Will the honourable member let me answer it in my way or does he want a go, because he will not improve matters any. Mr Hodgman —At least they do not call me paternalistic. Mr HOLDING —I would hate to tell the honourable gentleman what they do call him. Mr Goodluck —That is rude. Mr HOLDING —That is what the honourable member calls it! There was no difference in the perception of Aboriginal claims. Mr Everingham-he is publicly on the record in this regard-believed that Ayers Rock ought to be handed back to Aboriginal people and title vested in them and the Northern Territory Government . The only difference between our policy and Mr Everingham's policy, as the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the Prime Minister have pointed out, is that we have taken the view that Territorian conservation interests and Territorian tourist interests ought to be represented on the management of these parks. The matter was discussed with Mr Everingham and by virtue of the fact that the policy was the same and the title-- Mr Hodgman —Shameful! Mr HOLDING —Conversation with the States is a two way process. It is an odd view of the honourable gentleman opposite. He cannot have it both ways. Mr Everingham was involved in and understood both the claims of the Aboriginal people and the attitude of the Commonwealth. We implemented that policy. We have shown a readiness to talk with the Northern Territory Administration on a range of issues. That has not been reciprocated. It is odd that in those areas where the Commonwealth has constitutional priority the Northern Territory, time and again, in terms of excisions of leases and Acts, such as the criminal code, which substantially affect Aboriginal people, makes no attempt to confer with the Commonwealth. Conference is a two way process. When Mr Everingham wants to confer, we will be only to happy to accommodate him. Mr STEEDMAN —Is the Treasurer aware of advertisements currently appearing in the media featuring a recently retired Federal politician promoting a property trust that promises investors 'the potential of tax free capital growth from property investments'? Does the Treasurer consider that the Government's efforts to curb the activities of tax evaders and educate the public towards fairer tax systems will be made more difficult by this sort of advertising? Is the Government planning any code of ethics relating to ex-politicians who have received vast retirement payouts from the taxpayers and cost the country thousands of dollars in unnecessary by-elections being able to exploit their past positions in the Parliament for financial gain? Mr KEATING —The market in former Treasurers is pretty thin and I will not do anything to damage it. I have noticed claims being made by two former Treasurers in respect of certain financial institutions. The only persistent claim that one former Treasurer, the former right honourable member for Lowe, makes with which I persistently disagree is that he had an incomparable period as Treasurer of this nation. I know that that claim is disputed by at least a couple of people in this chamber. There is no question of tax avoidance or any improper practice in this regard. If a former member of parliament wishes to lend his or her name to a financial institution or any other private corporate enterprise, that is a matter entirely for him or her. It is a matter for potential investors to make their judgments about the veracity of the claims made by former parliamentarians about the financial assets that they are promoting. I say only, modestly, that in terms of selling securities, this year I have beaten them hands down. Mr CONNOLLY —Will the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment confirm that the Uluru National Park has been administered by the Northern Territory Government since 1977 subject to an agreement with the Commonwealth which is under the administration of his Department? Will he also tell the House when he last discussed the management of Uluru National Park with Ministers of the Northern Territory Government and whether, on that occasion, he advised those Ministers of the proposed change of policy? On the basis of public comments which he has made in support of Federal-State co-operation for park management, will he advise the House why the Northern Territory was not consulted in advance of the Government's announced decision last Friday evening? Mr COHEN —I do not think honourable gentlemen opposite have been listening to what Mr Everingham has been saying because if they had they would not be asking such stupid damn questions. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to be more temperate with his remarks. Mr COHEN —In July of 1983 Mr Everingham issued a statement entitled 'A question of balance' relating to Nothern Territory land rights. Let me read at least two points out of the ten point proposal. Mr Peacock —The 10 point proposal. That is important. Mr COHEN —Yes. Points four and five read: The Northern Territory Government will enter into negotiations with land councils for the granting of titles to national parks subject to claim. Such negotiations will include the two unsuccessful land claims over Uluru and Alligator River II. These areas take in Ayers Rock and Mt Olga . . . In letters to the Government he has indicated his willingness to grant land rights to the Aboriginal people in that area. Mr Sinclair —One out of 10 points. Mr COHEN —That is the one we are talking about. I have lifted the one which is the one we are talking about-Uluru National Park. The same gentleman, during the negotiations and discussions on Kakadu National Park, screamed loud and long that the people of Australia would not be allowed into Kakadu National Park. We now know what nonsense that was. For four years he said that the people would be denied access to Kakadu. The Opposition knows that this is a beat-up and a load of nonsense. Mr Anthony —That is not right. That is completely wrong. You are not telling the truth. Mr COHEN — I am sorry, but it is right. Mr Anthony —He did not say that. He wanted representation on the management committee. Mr COHEN —There will be representation on any management committee on Uluru National Park. This is a total beat-up. The honourable member knows it, and so does Mr Everingham. Mr Peacock —When did you talk to him about it? Mr COHEN —We have talked to Mr Everingham on a number of occasions. He came to my office and we ranged over a number of subjects-- Mr Peacock —When did you talk to him about Ayers Rock? Mr COHEN —We ranged over a number of subjects including Jabiluka, national parks and development of Kakadu. Mr Peacock —You didn't tell him? Mr COHEN —One of the reasons we do not spend a great deal of time in discussions with Mr Everingham on a number of subjects is that whenever it suits the Northern Territory Government it sets us up in a very pleasant way. I arranged to have discussions with Mr Tuxworth, and Mr Everingham asked me whether I would meet him there. I said that, unfortunately, I would not be there at the time he would be there; he was on his way to Singapore. So I flew in to have discussions with Mr Tuxworth and found that I had been blasted on Darwin radio by Mr Robertson, the Minister for Mines and Energy, who said that I had sneaked into Darwin without telling anyone I was coming. That is just one example. I could go on and list a whole series of those things. But we have had discussions with Mr Everingham and Mr Tuxworth. Mr Hawke —I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr Leo McLeay —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. It has become apparent in Question Time in recent weeks that the Leader of the Opposition attempts to interrogate Ministers while they are answering questions. My point of order is: Are those continual interjections by the Leader of the Opposition in order? If those interjections are not in order will you ensure that action is taken to allow members of the Parliament and the Australian people who are interested in the answers to the questions to hear them. An incident having occurred in the gallery- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There shall be no interruptions from the gallery. I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party to speak to the point of order. Mr Sinclair —Mr Acting Speaker, I suggest that in considering the point of order raised by the honourable member it would be worth also considering the admonition given by Mr Speaker in this place to ensure that answers by Ministers are relevant and as brief as is reasonably possible. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —I would suggest that long answers given-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —reading only-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —are totally-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! At the early stage of this period of my presiding over the House I would like to seek the co-operation of all members by simply pointing out that it is an obligation for members to resume their seats when the Speaker calls on them to come to order. I will tolerate no breach of that. Let me rule on the point of order. It is traditional that there be a robust relationship between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. That is in keeping with the traditions of the Parliament. There is a limit, of course , to the extent to which that privilege can be pursued and certainly a limit so far as its abuse is concerned. I find there is no point of order. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members I present the Treasury Department's annual report for 1982-83. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 (2) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, I present the sixth report of the operation of Part II of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —On behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry and for the information of honourable members I present an agreement between the Commonwealth Government and Kailis Kaohsinng Fishing Co. Pty Ltd for a joint fishing venture off northern Australia. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 44 (4) of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961, I present the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission's annual report for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present a communique issued after the meeting of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council held in Townsville on 3 June 1983. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Aboriginal Affairs annual report for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board 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 Surveyors Board 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 Building Standards Committee 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 Building Review Committee annual report for 1982-83. Ministerial Statement Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-In 1978, and again in 1979, the former Minister for Post and Telecommunications made major policy statements setting out policy guidelines for development of the broadcasting system. Those statements were designed to keep the Parliament and, through it, the public informed of government intentions and proposed actions relating to particular areas of the broadcasting system and they received bipartisan support. They were useful contributions to informed discussion of communication matters. On this occasion I wish to spell out the Government's intentions as they relate to the impact of the satellite system upon broadcasting. Because they are interrelated matters, I will also cover supplementary licences for television and radio and, at a later date, issue a statement on implementation of the supplementary licence scheme. Ownership of Aussat Pty Ltd I wish to inform the Parliament of the Government's decision on the future of Aussat Pty Ltd and its ongoing relationship with Telecom Australia. The Government has decided to retain Aussat as a Commonwealth owned company and to invite Telecom to purchase up to 25 per cent of the Commonwealth's shareholding. This decision means that the Government has revoked the earlier decision to offer 49 per cent of the Commonwealth's shareholding in Aussat to the public. That decision was taken in the context of a severe deficit situation, and it was always qualified by the Government's determination to ensure the protection of public interest aspects of satellite services in Australia. Legislation will be introduced to provide that shareholding in Aussat will always remain in public sector ownership. Changes will be made also to Aussat's memorandum and articles of association to reinforce this policy decision and to provide that Aussat and Telecom co-operate to bring about the co-ordination of satellite services with terrestrial services. The Government has also decided that private sector users of the satellite may own and operate earth stations to access the satellite and own terrestrial links to connect their earth stations to their premises. They will not be permitted to sell spare transponder capacity or to allow third party traffic. In other words, the regulations of satellite services will be in line with existing regulation by Telecom of terrestrial services. These decisions on the future of Aussat and its relationship with Telecom set a major part of the scene for consideration of satellite usage in relation to the Government's broadcasting policy. The central principles of that policy are to maximise diversity of choice of radio and television services and to discourage concentration of ownership and control of stations, while maintaining the viability of the broadcasting system. We have also been particularly conscious of the significant number of Australians who do not yet have access to commercial radio or television service. Satellite Program Services The previous Government struggled unsuccessfully to come to terms with the potential of the satellite system. There can be no doubt that satellites are powerful agents for change. The aim is to define strategic objectives and to make decisions accordingly. In the case of broadcasting, the previous Government failed to define its strategic objectives and the satellite debate was allowed to centre upon the concept and implications of direct broadcasting; that is, direct reception of unencoded satellite signals by the public using low cost domestic earth stations. Broadcasters and others therefore spent many hours arguing the pros and cons of particular commercial broadcasters being allocated the 30-watt transponders. This was misguided and unproductive. Although they are capable of direct broadcasting to low cost domestic dishes, 30-watt transponders are no different in principle from the other transponders in the satellite system. Once again, discussions of broadcasting matters have been bedevilled by our preoccupation with technology alone. This is not to say that we should allow direct broadcasting by commercial organisations via the satellites at this time. Because such direct broadcasting could have disruptive effects upon existing broadcasters, we wish to see it given detailed consideration by government. We have therefore decided that only the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will provide direct broadcasting services from the first two satellites. Commercial broadcasting uses of all transponders will be confined to national beams and will be encoded. Put quite simply, at this stage it will not be possible to receive direct broadcasts of commercial services via the satellites in the home. However, we do not intend to defer commercial DBS indefinitely. While we accept that a period of structural adjustment to the satellite-related technologies is desirable, we are also very conscious of the needs of Australians in remote and underserved communities. We supported and will continue the previous Government' s policy for HACBSS I, that is, an ABC television service, and two radio services to be available by DBS to all Australians. As the system settles down we intend to review the question of commercial DBS. However, it must be said that DBS is not, and never has been, the central question raised by the satellite system. The particular advantages of satellite technology are in making programs nationally available. When used for the compilation of program material between broadcasters-what we might call program assembly-the satellite system simply offers an improved version of the existing terrestrial networks. The satellite system can also be used to make syndicated program services available via the satellite system for sale to commercial broadcasters. In this statement, I refer to such services as satellite program services, or SPS, which will represent a major new development in Australian broadcasting. The cost of terrestrial distribution is directly related to distance, which effectively prevents continuous relays in real time. However, satellite costs are unrelated to distance and it will soon be technically possible to program a number of stations simultaneously from a central source at minimal cost. It will be seen that such developments could have far-reaching effects upon the broadcasting system, since if a single company were allowed virtually to program an unlimited number of stations, the ownership and control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act would be nullified. On the other hand, broadcasters already distribute such programs, often on relay and in real time. It would be nonsensical to ban such arrangements simply because they utilise the satellite system instead of terrestrial networks. The Government does not believe that it should be involved in direct allocation of transponders. We see the satellite as one of several methods by which broadcasters distribute program material and similar in principle to the bearers provided by Telecom Australia. We therefore propose to inform Aussat Pty Ltd of some simple ministerial guidelines re broadcasting uses of the satellite system. However, Aussat will contract for services provided through all transponders on a normal commercial basis. These ministerial guidelines will initially cover only three matters, although I will have power to amend them as appropriate: (a) Firstly all space station transponder capacity used for commercial television SPS would be in a national beam; (b) all signals using space station transponder capacity for commercial television SPS would be encoded before transmission via satellite; and (c) Aussat must make available to the ABC sufficient space station transponder capacity as may be required by the Corporation to provide HACBSS radio and television services. Honourable members who have taken an interest in satellite matters will recognise that the third provision already exists in the memorandum and articles of association of Aussat Pty Ltd, together with a similar provision protecting services for the Department of Aviation. The appropriate arena for regulatory activity is not in the satellite system but in broadcasting itself. Because they use valuable frequencies which are public property and because they have such an important effect upon both culture and society, broadcasters are regulated in every country of the world. In Australia we have a well established system of controls administered effectively by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal at a distance from the government of the day. It is clearly appropriate to utilise that existing regulatory system. Accordingly, we propose to legislate during the Budget session of the Parliament next year to empower the Tribunal to authorise use of satellite program services by broadcasters. We do not propose to license suppliers of SPS per se, nor will they be regulated as to program content or subject to ownership and control provisions. They will merely negotiate contracts with Aussat Pty Ltd in a normal business-like way. We anticipate that potential providers of SPS will commence negotiations with Aussat immediately, with a view to having their services in place by the time the satellite system is operational. We anticipate, however, that a series of matters might be proposed for regulation by the Tribunal. I have in mind matters such as program standards, hours of service, control of stations, local content, exclusive contracts and the proportion of national to local advertising. Because we do not have a monopoly of wisdom and because the people for whom all this is intended-the viewers and listeners-have a right to have their voices heard, I have directed the Tribunal to hold an inquiry into these matters and to report to me by 31 May 1984. The terms of reference for this inquiry make it clear that the Government's concern is not to impose unnecessary rules on broadcasters; radio, for instance, which has little in the way of centralised network stations and a strong tradition of localism, may well not require any regulations. We have indicated to the Tribunal that we want the regulation consistent with our strategic policy and that our central concern is to bring additional services to that significant number of Australians who do not yet have access to commercial brodcasting or have access to only one commercial television or radio service. The Tribunal may comment on such related matters as copyright legislation and provisions for Australian or local content of programs , but will not consider allocation of space station transponder capacity or contractual arrangements between Aussat Pty Ltd and suppliers of SPS. Radiated Subscription Television Services Let me now turn to Radiated Subscription Television Services-RSTV. In North America, where national satellite systems have been available since the early 1970's, SPS are widely available. Program 'packages' available to cable operators and other distributors, such as multipoint distribution services-MDS- for retransmission to their subscribers, range from Home Box Office to the Disney Channel, from a Madison Square Garden Network to Black Entertainment Television. Australia does not have the variety of distribution outlets available in North America; in particular, I can confirm the Government's belief that cable television cannot be justified at this stage. However, other variants of the basic SPS model are worth consideration. The Government has therefore authorised me to invite interested parties, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, to make detailed proposals for RSTV services. Of course, any RSTV service would be subscriber-based, that is, viewers would have to pay a monthly fee to receive the programs. It should be noted that RSTV could be established over a period of two to three years at significantly lower capital costs than cable and without CTV's radical impact upon telecommunications generally. Essentially, it would be a discretionary service. At this point I emphasis that no final decision has yet been made about whether to have an RSTV service, let alone who is to supply it. However, I expect to consider proposals early next year and will make a further statement at that time. Supplementary Licences The Government is most concerned about those areas where viewers do not have a choice of services. There is a considerable imbalance at present between people living in large metropolitan areas, who can choose between two or three commercial television services and those in regional areas, who have only one service. Moreover, some 200,000 households in remote areas have no commercial television at all. We hope to meet the immediate needs of regional areas by proclaiming the supplementary licence legislation, already on the statute books, for 1 December 1983. I will be covering this question in more detail in a later statement on implementation of the supplementary licence scheme; but, in the context of this statement, it should be noted that regional television stations already use the kind of material which will be provided by SPS. The effect of supplementary stations will be that more air time will be available in the relevant areas. In future regional viewers will see most of the programs available in the large metropolitan cities. The Government is also aware of suggestions that the existing legislation should be amended to allow for two supplementary licences throughout Australia. This concept is currently being discussed by the so-called 'networks', that is the major, capital city television stations, and the regional stations. However, there are some obvious problems regarding the concentration of ownership, preservation of localism and the independence of regional stations. At this stage, I can say that we see such developments as a matter for future consideration; however, we are willing to consider any suggestions supported by both parties to the discussions. Remote Areas and Commercial Television Unfortunately, supplementary stations are no advantage to the 200,000 households in remote areas who do not have even an original commercial television service. The basic difficulty has been that the thinly scattered population in remote areas is not financially attractive to advertiser-supported services. While successive governments have extended the ABC television services-and our current Budget extends it to 42 new remote communities-no private entrepreneur has been able to provide these families with a commercial service. The satellite system, because it is cost-effective and convenient, may contribute towards a solution. Again, the Government is aware of several suggestions for extension of regional stations services and I will be happy to consider any proposals put to me. However, our major concern is to provide commercial services to Australians who are presently deprived of them. If the industry cannot produce a solution, we may have to consider more direct remedies, and the Government has asked me to provide a further submission on this question. Let me now go back and summarise the Government's position regarding satellite- related broadcasting services. First, we confirm that the central principles of our broadcasting policy are to maximise diversity of choice in radio and television services and to discourage concentration of ownership and control of stations, while maintaining the viability of the broadcasting system. Second, in order to minimise disruptive effect upon regional stations, we have acted to prevent commercial direct broadcasting by the use of ministerial guidelines to Aussat Pty Ltd. The guidelines are simple and can easily be modified to suit changing conditions. Third, we do not see DBS as the central question raised by satellite technology. The satellite system represents a threat to our existing broadcasting system only because of its capacity for national distribution of signals in 'real time'. Accordingly, we have identified the provision of satellite program services, SPS, as a development which, while beneficial in itself, needs careful handling. SPS will therefore be allowed to develop freely, but broadcasters who propose to use SPS will be regulated by their existing statutory authority, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Fourth, we do not yet have a fixed position on what matters should be regulated by the Tribunal; I have directed the Tribunal to inquire and report on this by 31 May 1984. Fifth, we will soon be inviting proposals for the provision of RSTV services and I will make a further announcement on this matter early next year. Finally, we hope to proclaim the legislation pertaining to supplementary licences for 1 December 1983. I intend to make a further statement covering inplementation procedures at a later date. When this entire framework is in place, we expect that: a. all Australians, no matter how remote the area in which they live, will be able to reveive the ABC television service and two ABC radio services; b. every Australian will have at least one commercial television service potentially available; many will have two or three potentially available; c. many Australians in regional areas will have a choice of two commercial radio services; d. entrepreneurs interested in exploiting the broadcasting possibilities of the satellite system will be able to negotiate a flexible, commercially-oriented relationship with Aussat Pty Ltd; and e. the essential elements of our dual system of broadcasting will be preserved. The Government's primary concern is to see that radio and television services reach the people who want them and need them. The day has long since passed when broadcasting services could be regarded as luxuries. Virtually all Australian homes have both radio and television and people now regard the opportunity to choose between a range of services as their basic right. While we have always to be constrained by considerations of cost and good management, the Government's intention is to see that they get that choice. GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING SATELLITE-RELATED BROADCASTING SERVICES Satellite Program Services (see Note A) Satellite Program Services-SPS-will not be licensed, regulated as to program content, or subject to ownership and control provisions. Suppliers of SPS will negotiate commercial contracts with Aussat Pty Ltd, subject only to the minsiterial guidelines re broadcasting uses of the satellite. Commercial television licensees wishing to use an SPS on their stations will require formal authorisation from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Legislation is pending. Terms of reference for the Inquiry into Regulation of the Use of SPS by Broadcasters under section 18 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal are at Note B. The Tribunal is to report by 31 May 1984. Subject only to the above, commercial licensees will be free to negotiate contracts with any supplier of SPS. Ministerial Guidelines re Broadcasting Uses of the Satellite System The Minister for Communications has been authorised to inform Aussat Pty Ltd, on behalf of the Government, of ministerial guidelines re broadcasting uses of the satellite system. The Minister has authority to amend the guidelines as appropriate. The initial guidelines are as follows: a. as set out in its Memorandum and Articles of Association Aussat Pty Ltd will make available to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation sufficient space station transponder capacity as may be required by the Corporation to provide HACBSS services-radio and television; b. all space station transponder capacity used for commercial television SPS will be provided only in national beams; c. all signals using space station transponder capacity for commercial television SPS must be encoded before transmission via the satellite system. Supplementary Licences The Minister for Communications will accept applications for supplementary licences after the date of proclamation, which is anticipated to be 1 December 1983. Policy regarding implementation of the supplementary licences will be available in a later ministerial statement. Supplementary licensees will have the same freedom as existing or potential commercial licensees to negotiate contracts with suppliers of SPS. They will also be required to obtain authorisations from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Commercial Services for Remote Areas It is a major objective of the Government's broadcasting policy to provide commercial services to those Australians who do not yet have access to them, or who have access to only one commercial radio or television service. Detailed policy to achieve this objective is still under consideration and a decision will be announced during 1984. A. 'Satellite Program Services'-SPS-are syndicated program services available via the satellite system for sale to commercial broadcasters-radio and televison . The exact definintion of such services will be determined by the Minister after consideration of a report by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on regulation of the use of SPS by broadcasters (see Note B). B. The terms of reference for the Inquiry into Regulation of the Use of Satellite Program Services by Broadcasters are as follows: I, Michael John Duffy, Minister for Communications, pursuant to Section 18 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 ('the Act'), hereby direct the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to hold an inquiry and make recommendations to me regarding the following matters: 1. Likely arrangements for providing satellite program services (SPS), that is, programs (including advertisements) distributed via the satellite system to commercial licensees for rebroadcast on their stations; 2. any amendments to the Act required to regulate the provision of commercial television SPS; 3. the form and process most appropriate for authorisation by the Tribunal of commercial television SPS; 4. the range of matters related to commercial television SPS which should be regulated by the Tribunal; 5. whether similar arrangements are required to regulate the provision of commercial radio SPS; 6. what measures are required to promote provision of commercial services to remote areas; The Tribunal shall have regard for the following: The Government's desire to maximise diversity of choice in broadcasting services and to discourage concentration of ownership and control of stations while maintaining the viability of the broadcasting system; the significant number of Australians who do not yet have access to commercial broadcasting services or have access to only one commercial television or radio service; recent Government decisions regarding satellite program services, supplementary television licences and related subjects. The Tribunal shall not consider allocation of space station transponder capacity or contractual arrangements between Aussat Pty Ltd and providers of satellite program services, but should comment on such related matters as copyright legislation and provisions for Australian or local content of programs as it feels to be appropriate. The Tribunal shall report by 31 May 1984. I present the following paper: Broadcasting system-Development of satellite-related services-Ministerial Statement, 15 November 1983. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —by leave-I welcome the statement by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for no other reason that it has been a long time coming. During that long time, one of the worst kept secrets within the parliamentary Labor Party has been the debate on this issue. Whilst newspaper reports have indicated one thing one day and something else the next day, anybody genuinely concerned about the future of satellite broadcasting and its ownership and control in this country has been unable to ascertain the position. There has been a continuous tug-of-war in the Australian Labor Party between, on the one hand, the economic rationalists and, on the other hand, the ideologues, and, between those who want to adhere to a narrow Labor Party policy on this matter and those who would like to get some advantage out of the politics of it. This is obvious in the decision on the ownership of Aussat Pty Ltd, the transponder usage and radiated subscription television services or pay television. It is obvious from the Minister's statement that the tug-of-war is continuing. He said he would make further statements on supplementary licences, remote area commercial television and RSTV. I believe that the statement which we heard indicating the Government's position on this matter is a cynical, messy compromise. The Government has made decisions which should have been made in a technical and non-political way by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. After all, that is what the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is supposedly for. People in the remote areas of Australia have been forgotten. I will return to this matter and the matter of RSTV or pay television which has again been deferred. The Minister in his statement first referred to the ownership of Aussat. I am certainly pleased that the Minister's own view on the leadership of Aussat has not been accepted by the Cabinet and the Party; that is, that all the shares in Aussat be transferred to Telecom Australia. The decision for it to remain a public company with 75 per cent of its shares owned by the Commonwealth and 25 per cent owned by Telecom is certainly a better decision than the third option would have been. But I believe it is still not the preferred option, and it is not the position that the Opposition will adopt when back in government. We will return to the policy of the coalition, what was the policy of this Government until last week. We will sell 49 per cent of the shares, including Telecom's 25 per cent, to the people of Australia. What about Telecom's 25 per cent shareholding? How will it pay for it? I know we are not talking of a huge amount compared with Telecom's annual capital expenditure, but if it is to come out of Telecom's annual capital vote, that will mean that many people in Australia will not have improved telephone systems in the next 12 months. Telecom people say they never have enough money for their capital expenditure. If Telecom is to buy those shares in some other way, I will be pleased to hear about it from the Minister. I commend the Government's decision on earth stations. I think it is sensible that the major users own the earth stations. It would give them confidence and security and allow them to develop the efficiency necessary for the best use to be made of the transponders in the leased time. I await with interest the regulations which the Minister indicated in his statement would be promulgated concerning unused capacity. I hope that a flexible arrangement is possible so that the maximum efficient use of transponders can be made. The major part of the statement concerned the use of satellites for radio and television program distribution. The Minister said that the Government's policy was to maximise diversity of choice, to discourage concentration of ownership and to be conscious of those people in remote areas of Australia without any television. Considering the decisions that the Government has made, I think that is an amazing explanation of Government policy. The decisions actually contradict every aspect of Government policy. The decisions announced today will not maximise diversity of choice. They will tend to concentrate ownership and control of the electronic media throughout Australia. The people in the remote areas have been completely forgotten when it comes to a commercial television service. Dr Harry Edwards —They say one thing and do another. Mr LLOYD —That is right. I think the people of the Northern Territory will be very interested in this, with their election coming up in a few weeks time. I believe the Minister was devious in his statement. He did not say that the 30- watt transponders have been allocated to the Sydney networks but what other interpretation can one make? Aussat has been instructed to allow only national program transmission or, in the Minister's terminology, the satellite program service or the SPS. There will be no Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service II-that is, the high-power transponders on the second satellite will not be allowed to be used for free remote area commercial television. There will be no pay television, RSTV, in the near future. All programs, with the exception of Australian Broadcasting Corporation programs, are to be in code, and no direct broadcasting will be allowed, except by the ABC . So much for reducing the concentration of ownership and control in the electronic media of this country, supposedly one of the Labor Party policy priorities. So much for commercial television for remote areas. I quote the Minister's statement: every Australian will have at least one commercial television service potentially available; many will have two or three potentially available; I would like to know what 'potentially' means. Does it mean some time in the dim , distant future? In the Minister's statement reference is made to the marching orders being issued not only to Aussat, to which I have already referred, but also to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal concerning the satellite program service and national programming or networking. Once again, the ABT is not being asked to make the decisions; the Government has made the real decisions. I believe that the ABT should have been used to make the decisions in a non- political and balanced way for the best use of satellites for the people of Australia generally. The Opposition supports the inevitability and desirability of networking or, as the Minister calls it, SPS, but there are a number of ways in which that can be done. More efficient use can be made of transponders so that there are no time zone and censorship problems. Television for remote areas should be introduced more quickly and more cheaply. There should be not only regional programs but also more programs originating in capital cities other than Sydney and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Melbourne. I believe the ABT should have been instructed to begin hearings on these issues with the major parties involved; that is, the networks, other capital city television stations, regional television stations, remote area interests and those interested in introducing RSTV. That would have allowed consideration of the full range of potential transponder use. The hearings should not have been restricted to transponder use in a certain footprint or mode. The Tribunal should have considered not just straight national networking but an arrangement for national, State and regional networking. That would have provided for national programs, regional programs and capital city programs. I am also disappointed that a decision on RSTV or pay television has been deferred once again. I quote again from the Minister's statement: At this point I emphasise that no final decision has yet been made about whether to have an RSTV service, let alone who is to supply it. However, I expect to consider proposals early next year and will make a further statement at that time. I emphasise that the Minister, not the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, will consider the proposals. Before we lost office it was our intention to instruct the ABT to call for hearings into the introduction of RSTV. I believe that it is correct that the ABT should do that. I believe it is important that RSTV be introduced as soon as possible. The Minister and others have made the point about program choice in this country. They have made a comparison between the more limited range of commercial television services available in regional areas and the services available in capital cities. That was a fair comment and I commend the Minister for proceeding with the legislation on supplementary licenses which we passed last year. But if one compares Australia with many other countries one sees that it is not the regional areas of this country, but the capital cities that are short of program choice. There is one way in which all Australians can have greater program choice, and that is by RSTV or pay television. I am also puzzled that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has not spoken up on this matter. He is always speaking about new technology and new industries and creating employment and investments. Dr Harry Edwards —New investment and new jobs. Mr LLOYD —Here is an industry that would immediately bring to this country new technology, investment of about $200m and 6,000 or 7,000 new jobs, as my honourable friend mentioned. This is the way to get new technology, new industry and new employment in this country. The technology is available and could be introduced quickly. The remote areas are the big losers in this statement. They get nothing because the ABC and Aussat were already committed to providing, through HACBSS I, a service for them. There is to be no free commercial service at this stage for people in remote areas. Programs are to be encoded. No direct broadcasting services are to be allowed. From now on any system, if and when it comes, will be very expensive. The Government obviously does not have an answer at this time so it is looking again at the problem. So much for its promises during the election campaign to look after the remote areas. So much for the grand concept of the satellites to see that the people of the remote areas have the same basic choice as all other Australians-one free commercial television service and one ABC service. Mr Hunt —What about the promise to TUA? Mr LLOYD —As the honourable member for Gwydir points out, what of the promise to Television Australia at this point? I believe that the voters in the Northern Territory should be made very aware of their abandonement by this Government. The satellites are not being used as they can be and should be to provide the program choice which is the right of every Australian. I am disappointed that the decisions are not more complete and that the Government has not left open the possibility of more flexibility and has not used the ABT as it should. Instead it is intruding politically and pointing the way in issuing these marching orders. This paper raises as many questions as it answers. Therefore, it is imperative that the Minister make further statements concerning these outstanding issues before the Parliament rises in December. Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I understand that the honourable member for Barker wishes to make a personal explanation? Mr PORTER(Barker) —Yes, Mr Acting Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. In the Melbourne Herald of Saturday, 12 November an article appeared under the heading: 'Libs: ''A bolt from the blue'' on Rock'. This refers to the Federal Government's action on Ayers Rock. The editor, Ross McSwain, contacted both the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the shadow Minister for the environment, and me to obtain comments in relation to the Federal Government's action. The article, whilst correct in the comments that it records, unfortunately has the names reversed. For the record I would like to correct this. Where Mr Connolly's name appears my name should appear, and vice versa. Assent to the following Bills reported: States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1983 Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1983 Migration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1983-84 River Murray Waters Bill 1983. 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 every pray. by Mr Blanchard,Dr Blewett,Mr Burr,Mr Cadman,Mr Connolly,Mr Fife,Mr Gayler ,Mr Hand,Mr Humphreys,Mr Hunt,Mr Lindsay,Mr Lusher,Mr McVeigh,Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Keefe,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Saunderson and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles,Mr Dobie,Mr Fife and Mr Humphreys. 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 member of a school parent club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of 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,Mr O'Neil and Mr Porter. 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 women's 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 Ms McHugh and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F Base Richmond would make operations impratical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. A Bill is now pending in your honourable House intituled 'A Bill for An Act relating to discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy or involving sexual harassment'. 2. Your petitioners say that the effects of certain provisions of the Bill if enacted into law will be to enable persons to coerce women to engage in paid employment, and to surrender the care of their children to child care institutions, to grant rights to foreign persons upon a United Nations Commission to enter upon Australian Territory with powers to inspect, investigate and seek to influence, to report and recommend, with the object of procuring total employment of Australian women, and that all of these things will lead to the elimination of the traditional family unit. 3. That your petitioners say that the Bill if passed into law as it now stands will be insulting to the women of Australia, harmful to our families, and a grevious interference with the freedom of the Australian citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands, and your petitioners will, as in duty bound, ever pray. by Mr Cowan. 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 Groom. 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 U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountibility in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. 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 Groom. 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 in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that WHEREAS the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And WHEREAS the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation, and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petitions of the undersigned citizens of Australia and electors of Farrer respectfully showeth: That the proposal that Medicard be issued to 14 year old persons should be amended so that they are issued to children on leaving school and not at the earlier age of 14. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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: 1. The proposal of the right honourable the Federal Treasurer to impose increased taxation on superannuation payments is iniquitous and threatens the planned security and retirement lifestyle of all prudent employees. 2. The problem of 'double dipping' as defined by the Treasurer is more fairly dealt with by consideration of the assets of prospective applicants for old age pensions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will rescind this proposal to increase the taxation on superannuation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hayden. 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 contribution to the North Queensland community by the Lavarack Barracks based North Queensland Army Band is such that any moves to scale down or do away with that Band would be to the detriment of the community as a whole. It has been strongly rumoured that the N.Q. Army Band is soon to be broken up and its members absorbed into other Army Bands under the current Manpower Distribution inquiry being conducted by officers under the Army Chief of General Staff. Any such move would be viewed with extreme disappointment by the large number of North Queensland residents who have come to rely on and appreciate the work done by the band. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the North Queensland Army Band be maintained at its current strength and position, and that the Band be given every encouragement to continue the highly appreciated work being undertaken in the North of Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lindsay. 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 whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction. And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540,000 kilograms of plutonium 239 if utilised in light water reactors overseas. And whereas the maximum permissible inhalation of plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram. And whereas plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations, and cancers. And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining plutonium from the biosphere for the requiste quarter of a million years. And whereas plutonium coming into contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form. And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere. And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us. And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for bio-medical uses. Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure: 1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio- medical purposes be banned. 2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economic independence and self-sufficiency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Mayer. 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 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. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australian respectfully showeth that the Polish Government has not honoured its agreement to the Helsinki Agreement, particularly with regard to the following issues: the freeing of all political prisoners respecting of all citizen and human rights the right to form trade unions the removal of censorship permission for Polish citizens to travel abroad, especially for family re- unions. We humbly request the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, through the proper diplomatic channels, to raise in the United Nations forum a strong request to the Polish Government that it honour its obligation agreed to at the Helsinki Agreement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament, assembled. The 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 states 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. 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 Braithwaite,Mr Drummond,Mr Fisher,Mr Hodgman,Mr Lloyd,Mr McGauran,Mr McVeigh,Mr Moore and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament, assembled. We, the undersigned officers and members of the order of the White Cross International, a humanitarian knighthood for the defence and protection of life and of residents of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth: That we, the undersigned petitioners voice our deep concern about intentions and preparations of the present Labor Government to turn the Commonwealth of Australia into a republic. That is to say, to abolish the sovereignty of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia. That we believe, that Her Majesty's rule over the former colony has established and maintained stability, peace, harmony and law and order, blessings, which few countries in the world can claim these days and that the people of Australia should not be subjected to an adventurous future of a republic, particularly when there is no need for such a move other than some sort of ego-trip by a political party which believes in self-glorification and is unable to realise the most important link between the historical past and the envisaged future. America's power and habit to manhandle banana republics should be welknown by now and the Australian public would be ill advised to follow such a course of uncertainty. His Excellency the Lord of Knights of the Order of the White Cross International, who is also a member of the Grand Council of the Confederation of Chivalry, a member of the Monarchist League and Knight Commander of 15 other sovereign Orders of Chivalry has rallied for the support and the moral defence of Her Majesty to take already now preventive measures of public information in order to avoid a situation of being faced with accomplished fact and the Soverign Humanitarian Mission State Aeterna Lucina, a Monarchie in principle, has as a whole assured Her Majesty of a wholehearted alliance in this matter as a friend and as a supporter of chivalric traditions, fair justice and protection of life and the underprivileged. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The honourable members of the House rejected any future moves which would lead to the establishment of a republic of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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 Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth- Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth- That deep and urgent concern is being experienced as a result of the decision not to proceed with the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link, whereby employment security in the Iron Triangle cities of Port Pirie, Port Augusta, and Whyalla is adversely affected, and in some cases seriously threatened; and further, that the rail link is regarded as vital for Australia's defence security; and also that the tourist potential of Darwin and the Northern Territory in consequence is gravely hampered. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government readdresses itself to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway project as a matter of paramount priority in the light of the manifest detrimental consequences to employment prospects in the Triangle, the necessity for stabilising the State's economy, the significant requirement to add to national defence capability, and the express need to develop Northern Territory tourist opportunities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. Petitions received. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The callous disregard by this Government of the needs and aspirations of the people of the Northern Territory. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.47) —The dynamism of the Northern Territory, Australia's fastest growing region, is a lesson to all Australians. It demonstrates that with a commitment to the harnessing of individual initiative and ability, with encouragement of an aggressive and dynamic private sector and, most importantly, with imaginative, determined and constructive government policies, progress can be made even against considerable odds. The record of the self-governing Northern Territory under the leadership of Paul Everingham and the Country-Liberal Party is by any measure outstanding. The Everingham Government has created a climate in which jobs have been created at four times the national average, in which unemployment has fallen to 4.8 per cent and in which a larger and still growing population has been attracted to the Territory. Indeed-- Mr Hayden —They are leaving the Territory. Mr PEACOCK —The Minister, in casting aspersions, as the Cabinet does from time to time, says that they are leaving the Territory. The reality is that a larger and still growing population has been attracted to the Territory. Indeed the annual growth rate of the Territory is 5.56 per cent compared with the national average of only 1.71 per cent. No wonder the Government does not understand what is happening up in the Northern Territory. In addition to a growing population, the mining sector has developed dramatically. A dynamic tourist industry has been generated and the number of tourists there has grown by 10 per cent per annum over the past decade. Housing construction figures have doubled over the last five years. What has the Hawke Labor Government done to this state of the future, this region of such enormous economic potential? Mr Leo McLeay —When was the last time you went there? Mr PEACOCK —Only a few months ago, and again a few months before then. Has the Government put in place policies which will contribute further to the dynamism of the Territory? No, it has not. Has it consulted with the Territory on ways in which job growth can be even further accelerated? No. Has it looked sympathetically at the infrastructure and the development needs of the Territory ? No, of course it has not. The people of the Northern Territory do not want any special deals. They are not looking for privilege or preferential treatment. All they are after is a good old-fashioned fair go. They will not get it from this Government. This is a government whose focus is elsewhere. Whether it be the country people of Australia, the people living in the smaller or more distant States or, most importantly, the people of the Northern Territory, they can forget about ever getting a fair go from this Government. Did they get a fair go on uranium? No. Did they get a fair go on consultation over the Ayers Rock national park? No. Did they get a fair go on the Alice Springs-Darwin railway? No. They will not get a fair go because this Government does not care about the needs and aspirations of the people of the Territory. In only eight months, the Labor Government has established a clear pattern of arbitrary, discriminatory and downright biased decision-making. The previous Government made a $546m commitment to build the long-awaited Alice Springs- Darwin railway. Even before the election, planning had started on that railway. Labor knows that this railway is important to the Territory. It knows that it would create jobs. It knows it would be central to the future development of the Territory-a real shot in the arm to its dynamic potential. I suppose it was not votes that caused the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to make this decision. I suppose he really believed that it would be a shot in the arm for the Northern Territory , that it would create jobs and that it would be central to the future development of the Territory. I presume that is why the Prime Minister explicitly promised during the election campaign to continue with the construction of the railway. He said: We-that is the Labor Government-if elected will complete the Alice Springs/ Darwin rail link. That is what the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Wills, said when he was Leader of the Opposition. I hope the Labor member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) joins this debate because the matter is on his conscience. He was the one who on 8 May-I hope every Territorian recalls it-said: 'I promise you that only the Labor Government can be trusted to build the Alice Springs-Darwin railway.' What did the Government do after he said that? Within a week or two it said it would not proceed with the rail link. After we protested here and in the Territory and after the Government of the Northern Territory protested, it announced an inquiry-an inquiry, after its explicit promises during the election campaign. The inquiry was not brought forward because of any concern about the impact of the decisions on the Northern Territory but simply because the decision, once again, upset the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia. The Government did not need an inquiry before the election when it gave an allegedly firm commitment and it does not need one now. It does not need any inquiry to know firstly that the railway is of critical importance to the development of the Territory. Darwin is the gateway to Asia and one of the fastest growing markets in the world-a market with more consumers than the United States and as many as the European Economic Community but with a growth rate three or four times as great. The railway would bring Australian exports from the eastern States and from South Australia more readily to those markets, avoiding the congestion and the widespread problems of our ports. It does not need an inquiry to know, secondly, that the construction of the railway would provide much needed contracts and with them jobs for our ailing steel industry. It is estimated that these contracts would be worth $200m to the Australian industry. Jobs would be created in New South Wales's rolling stock factories. They would be created in the Whyalla steelworks. Jobs would be created in central and northern construction companies. In total, well over 1, 000 jobs would be created. Labor knows all these facts already and its inquiry is nothing more than a sham to deflect the criticism and the anger that its decision has justifiably earned in the Territory. Every member of the Opposition knows well the feelings and the nervousness of Government members through Question Time today, not only because of the decision on the railway or the decision on uranium but also because of the way in which the Government reached its decision on Ayers Rock. This was evident particularly in the answer of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is at the table, who refused to consult with the Northern Territory Government. Why? Because he did not want to be set up. Goodness me! I turn now to the Government's highly discriminatory uranium decision and its impact on the Territory. Again, this is a decision aimed at saving the Bannon Labor Government at the expense of all northern Australia, not just the Territory. Does this Government care about the fact that its decision will put an end to the tremendous development which could have resulted in the north from the uranium industry? Of course it does not. One of the Territory's major industries has been swept aside. Does this Government care about the traditional Aboriginal owners of the Jabiluka and Koongarra mine sites or about their desire to have a lifestyle free from government handouts? Of course it does not. I remind honourable members that such a lifestyle would have been possible with the $200m in royalties the further development of the uranium industry would have generated. Does this Government care about the residents of Jabiru? Jabiru was established specifically for the workers in the uranium mines in the area. It was to have a population more than twice the present size. This Government has killed that possibility. Does it care about those companies which have been prepared to invest in the Territory's future? They were prepared to invest $100m in Koongarra, $50m in Jabiluka and $1m in constructing an environmental research centre. These are not, of course, issues for Labor's left so they will not be considered. Consequently, they are not issues for the Government. The concerns of these people and their legitimate claims for compensation were not even on Labor's agenda when considering uranium. When I asked the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about the matter last week he said it was not even being considered. That is a measure of Labor's concern for the people of the north. What of the Government's latest shameful attack on the people of the Territory- the handing over of title to Ayers Rock without any consultation with the Government of the Northern Territory but, by the way, with a backdoor tip-off to the Labor Leader of the Opposition. He was told 24 hours before the Chief Minister was told. That was a dirty backdoor political deal. The plain fact is that until the issue of the lease back is resolved further development in central Australia will stultify. The Government does not care that it has jeopardised the Northern Territory's biggest tourist project, Yulara. The Prime Minister talked about the Citibank organisation at Question Time today. Citibank advised: Funds would not be forthcoming from the banks . . . until such time as the lease arrangements were found to be accepted by the banks. Mr Shipton —Common practice. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed it is common practice. One can understand the caution and, in the circumstances, the scepticism of financial institutions, given this Government's appalling record for sensible decision-making. Despite what the Prime Minister said at Question Time today, today's statement by the Chairman of Citicorp Australia Holdings Ltd emphasised the importance of appropriate lease arrangements if financing is to proceed. Ayers Rock and Mount Olga are extremely significant Aboriginal sites and appropriate arrangements have to be made to protect those Aboriginal interests. Ayers Rock is also one of the most admired and treasured natural land forms of the country, and the way this Government has gone about dealing with this matter has needlessly generated widespread concern not just in the Territory but also elsewhere. I put it to the Minister that it has also harmed the Aboriginal cause. As with so many issues, this Government has talked a lot about consultation but that is all it is-empty words. This was confirmed by the Government this afternoon. On 18 April, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) stated that he would take the latest proposal to Mr Everingham but that was a typical Labor undertaking because no consultation ever took place. After this decision the people of the Territory must ask: What does self-government mean to the Hawke Government? If the Federal Government has to make this sort of arbitrary decision to trample all over the people of the Territory, how can a commitment to self-government be taken seriously? In the time available, I have mentioned only three of the more outstanding attacks on the people of the Territory. There are, in fact, numerous others. I have not focused on the failure to honour the commitment on increased zone allowances. I have not focused on the cutback in funding for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, an extremely important project in the Territory which aimed to eradicate brucellosis completely by 1992. I have not focused on the clear threats by the Labor Government to cut back the funding program for the Territory, a program drawn up by the Fraser and Everingham governments and included in the Territory's memorandum of understanding and a program which the Commonwealth Grants Commission regards as providing insufficient funds to the Territory. I have not focused on the callous disregard of the concerns of outback Territorians in the Government's current deliberations on the use of the Aussat Pty Ltd satellite. Honourable members who were in this House only minutes ago will realise what the Government has done. It has neglected the Territory again. Even in this latest decision announced today there is no reference to or opportunity for Territorians who have been neglected again. I have not focused on the fuel excise resulting in increased electricity and freight charges in the Territory. I have not focused on the long list of discriminatory decisions raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) last Thursday, such as the refusal of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund to finance a new tourist hotel in Darwin ; the neglect of the south road from Alice Springs to Adelaide; and the attempt to bypass responsibility for airports in the Territory, particularly at Alice Springs, but also at Katherine, Tindal and Darwin. In the eight months of this Government we have witnessed what can be described bluntly as a veritable vendetta against the people of the north. On 3 December they will have their chance to show this Government what they think of that. For those reasons and many more, which I would explain if time were available, we have put before the House today a matter of public importance in the following terms: The callous disregard by this Government of the needs and aspirations of the people in the Northern Territory. With full voice we will be supporting the incumbent Government. This Government gives the Chief Minister no support; it gives the Northern Territory Government no support. Through this Government's neglect it callously disregards the people of the Territory. That is why we have raised this matter today. Those people will turn on this Government in the ballot box on 3 December. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(4.02) —We have just seen one of the most pathetic performances by a Leader of the Opposition that I have seen in all my time in Parliament. All the sheep have been herded in by the whip, all giving their bleats in a chorus like a bunch of schoolgirls at a football match. It is absolutely pathetic. It is an example of just how desperate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is to hold his position. With the former Treasurer breathing down the back of his neck he has had to whip up this pathetic issue today in an attempt to try to bolster his leadership. If ever we have seen a beat-up to match the performance of the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory it is the one over the Ayers Rock issue. Talk about the greatest non-event in political history! I have seen some rippers in my time in this Parliament but nothing to beat this one. The Opposition is really desperate; 'strewth, this just leaves everybody absolutely aghast. Talk about being short of an issue for an election campaign! Mr Everingham has claimed that the Commonwealth Government has acted without consultation in granting land ownership of Ayers Rock and Uluru to the Aboriginal people. He has claimed that it will deny other Australians access to one of the most popular tourist attractions in Australia and that it will place at risk Yulara village, a $150m project commenced, incidentally, by the Whitlam Government which, I notice, no honourable members bothered to mention. There could be absolutely nothing more dishonest than this ludicrous assertion. We are told that all of this comes as a great shock, a bolt out of the blue, to the Leader of the Opposition. Let me point out that this decision is stated Australian Labor Party policy and was enunciated prior to the election and reiterated by both the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and me during our number of visits to the Northern Territory. I said it on a radio station program when I was in Alice Springs not so very long ago. On those grounds alone Mr Everingham cannot claim that it has come as a bolt out of the blue that we would grant land rights to the Aborigines at Uluru National Park. However, more importantly than it being ALP policy it also happens to be Mr Everingham's policy. I quoted before to honourable members what everyone seemed to find highly amusing. I will quote again. Mr Hodgman —The full 10 points. Mr COHEN —I will certainly quote the whole lot if the honourable member wants to listen to it. None of the other eight points in the package in any way interferes with the fundamental truth about these two points. I ask leave to have the whole of this paper incorporated in Hansard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) -Is leave granted? Mr Anthony —Give us a look at it. Mr COHEN —It is your own Chief Minister's document. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Could I suggest to the Minister that he table the paper? The Speaker has made his views fairly clear on the matter. Mr COHEN —I will table it. If I read the whole document I would not get a chance to answer some of the silliest assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition. It is tabled. Point 4 states: The Northern Territory Government will enter into negotiations with land councils for the granting of titles to national parks subject to claim. Point 5 states: Such negotiations will include two unsuccessful land claims over Uluru and Alligator River II. These areas take in Ayers Rock and Mt Olga in central Australia, and a portion of Kakadu National Park in the north. Let me quote from a letter by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), which damns the Chief Minister for all time in regard to this debate. The letter, dated 3 June 1983, states: . . . we are willing to provide perpetual Aboriginal land title to the area, under Territory law, at the same time as provision is made for the National Park to come under Northern Territory management. That is referring to Uluru-Ayers Rock. That is very gracious of him, but it is not his land to give away. The principle of it is the same. He was willing to grant Aboriginal title to the land and we have done that because the land is not his to grant; it is ours. It is Commonwealth land. We have granted title to the Aboriginal people. The nub of the question is not ownership, anyhow; it is access. That is where Mr Everingham is not only dishonest but also downright mischievous and positively evil. The whole of his hysterical outburst is based on striking fear into Northern Territorians and Australians that somehow they will suddenly not be permitted to visit Ayers Rock and the Olgas. The Government decision-Mr Everingham has that decision-inter alia, states: A grant of Aboriginal freehold title be made to an Aboriginal land trust in respect of the Uluru National Park and a lease back arrangement be negotiated with the relevant Aboriginal land trust to ensure the construction of the park. The one was dependent on the other. The Northern Territory Government knows full well that it never owned the land. It has always been Commonwealth land. It is now a Commonwealth national park. A condition of the grant of title is that the areas will be leased to the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for continuation as a national park. Tourism will not be affected in any way, shape or form. Mr Everingham knows that and is deliberately trying to create unnecessary fear in people's minds for his own grubby, little political ends. Mr Hodgman —You would not say that to his face. Mr COHEN —I will say it to his face any time. Mr Braithwaite —You have avoided him so far. Mr COHEN —I have not avoided Mr Everingham. I have seen him personally in my office and spoken to him once or twice on the phone. Mr Sinclair —That is consultation, is it? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! Will the Minister please speak through the Chair? Mr COHEN —I have spoken to him. Whenever Mr Everingham has sought to speak to me , either personally or by phone, I have been available to talk to him. Mr Porter —But you were initiating this action, not him. Mr COHEN —Mr Everingham, as I have told the Opposition over and over again-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I suggest to the House that as the Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence on this issue members extend to the Minister the same courtesy. Mr COHEN —There was no issue upon which we were divided. If he was willing to grant title to the land and we wanted to do so, that meant that we were in agreement; there was no problem on the issue. He has known that this issue has been around for ages. He has discussed it with people. Suddenly, when the matter was passed-a fairly simple matter to be passed-he was hysterical. We know that that was because he needed an issue for his election campaign. He will look awfully sick. We have heard already today the statement by the Central Land Council and the Pitjantjatjara Council, which was referred to by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The statement read: The CLC and Pitjantjatara Council are extremely concerned that the enlightened gesture of the Commonwealth Government in granting Aboriginal people title to Uluru National Park has already been distorted by the Northern Territory Chief Minister Mr Everingham for perceived political advantage. Before the facts are further muddied in the NT election campaign, it is essential that the position of the traditional Aboriginal owners is clearly stated. The Aboriginal people have always recognised the legitimate tourist interest in the national park. They have always supported the concepts of leasing back the park to the Commonwealth. They have consistently asserted that the park will always be available for the benefit of all Australians. Further, the statement continues: Any rare and limited restrictions necessary for ceremonial purposes are likely to be confined to those sites already registered as sacred by the NT Governments own Sacred Sites Authority (and already subject to restrictions). Such ceremonies should be respected as a vital part of traditional Aboriginal life. Mr Fisher —Who signed that? Mr COHEN —It is from the Central Land Council. The honourable member should listen to what is going on instead of having his fingers in his ears all the time. Mr Everingham knows very well that the same arrangements have been working very satisfactorily throughout Australia, and in the Northern Territory in particular. They have been working in Kakadu National Park. He put on the same performance when the Aboriginals were granted title to that area of the Kakadu National Park, and maintained that Australians, Northern Territorians in particular, would be denied access to Kakadu National Park. He knows that that has not happened. The land was leased back to the Commonwealth and the scheme has worked beautifully. Through the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which is part of my Department, there has been a gradual growth in tourism. Superb facilities have been established in the park. If honourable members opposite will contain themselves for a few more days, they will hear about further developments in that area which will increase the- Mr MacKellar —Have you consulted with the Northern Territory Government? Mr COHEN —Yes, we have. As a matter of fact I had discussions with Mr Tuxworth some months ago about the development of Kakadu National Park. We will be having further discussions when we have made our announcement. Despite the Northern Territory Government's claim that we do not discuss, we have had a number of talks with it on a number of matters, including Kakadu National Park. Mr Hodgman —Another Canberra takeover. Mr COHEN —It might come as a surprise to the honourable member-I know the way he thinks about his own State and the way he carries on-but before I am a New South Welshman, I happen to be an Australian. This is an Australian Parliament and we all ought to think like Australians before we think of our selfish parochial interests. This is a national interest, a national park and a national concern. It is about time that the honourable member showed some interest in the Aboriginal people, instead of being such a renowned racist in his attitude towards the Australian Aboriginal people. The arrangement with regard to the Kakadu National Park is working satisfactorily. It has worked in the interests of the Aboriginal people; it has worked in the interests of Kakadu National Park ; it has worked in the interests of the tourists. As I said before, in a few days time we will be making some announcements which will, I am sure, have the approval of the House and of the Northern Territory. That covers the main thrust of the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He raised the question of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. I point to the fact that for the 30 years in which the Liberal-National parties, which have such a shabby record with regard to the railway, were in office not a sleeper was laid. Mr Reeves —Not an inch of rail. Mr COHEN —Not an inch of rail. The Opposition is great at talking, but is short on delivery. The Tarcoola-Alice Springs line is a stage in this network which was begun by the Whitlam Labor Government and it is now completed. Mr Sinclair —Rubbish. It was not begun by that Government. I began it. Mr COHEN —The Tarcoola-Alice Springs line was. In 1980 the Fraser Government promised $10m for the survey and design work on the Alice Springs-Darwin connection. By 1983, only half of that amount had been spent. Labor, in its first year in office, will spend as much on the connection as the Fraser Government spent in the previous three years. It will spend $5m in 1983-84 to complete the preliminary planning and design of the project. The final environmental impact study is being prepared. We have agreed to release for public comment the draft environmental impact study on the project. In the 1983- 84 Budget the Commonwealth offered to construct the railway on a 60-40 joint funding basis. An alternative offer was also made to upgrade the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin and to upgrade Alice Springs facilities to give a high standard road-rail link between Adelaide and Darwin. That is only a part of the measures. In the recent Budget a whole spate of measures for the Northern Territory was announced. Payments to the Territory from the Federal Government this year total $841.8m This represents an increase of $124m over last year's Budget allocation. In real terms it represents $64m over and above the rate of inflation. We now hear a lot of bleats from the Opposition about its sudden newly found interest in the Northern Territory. The people of the Northern Territory thought so little of the previous Government's performance with regard to the Northern Territory over the last three years that they threw out the previous sitting member and replaced him with the present member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), the best member that the Northern Territory has ever had. He will speak later in this debate. During the last 15 minutes we heard from the Leader of the Opposition a pathetic performance aimed at boosting his stocks with his back bench. Mr Peacock —Are you still on the same theme? Mr COHEN —I started on it and I will finish on it, because that is the major problem of the Leader of the Opposition. We have seen this afternoon a pathetic attempt to cover up for Mr Everingham's disgraceful performance in trying to scare the people of the Northern Territory and Australia into believing that somehow or other they have lost access to Ayers Rock. He has made a mistake and he will finish up, when this is properly explained, as it will be over the next few days-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.17) —The diatribe that we have just heard from the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is the best proof of the urgency of the matter which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has brought before this House; that is, the callous disregard by this Government of the needs and aspirations of the people of the Northern Territory. The supercilious approach that the Minister took to this very serious matter which is before the Parliament highlights the contempt and disregard that the Government has for the concerns of the people of the Northern Territory. Members of the Government must have cringed when they heard the Minister's performance a few minutes ago. The very forlorn look on the face of his colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) showed how embarrassed he was about the whole situation. It is little wonder that so much concern has been raised across the nation by the announcement during the week that the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park would be handed over to the Aboriginals. The concern was not due to that fact, but to the way in which it was done; the very amateurish way in which this Government blatantly made a decision without going through the proper forms of respect for the Government of the Northern Territory and for the consultative procedures that have taken place over a long period dealing with 10 major points of issue with regard to the land rights of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It was a complex and delicate matter to handle. It involved the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal land councils and the Commonwealth. Each had certain rights, obligations and responsibilities that needed to be looked at in a total package. But this Minister, who today in this chamber babbled on so blandly, obviously disregarded that whole complex series of negotiations, went ahead and made this bald announcement, totally ignoring the Northern Territory. The result is that great suspicions have arisen across the country as to what is going on. Surely there must be complications if one is to hand over land title to people. Have all the details been worked out? What are the access arrangements to be for Australians, who all feel that Ayers Rock is theirs? What are to be the obligations as far as royalties are concerned? Take, for instance, the symbol of Ayers Rock. Who owns Ayers Rock now? It is pictured on our tourist brochures all over Australia. Is a fee to be paid for that? None of these things have been worked out. The handing over of Ayers Rock has been done more or less as some political gimmick to satisfy certain pressure groups. This matter of public importance today highlights the need to draw to the attention of the Australian people the inadequacies of the way in which this Government has been handling the affairs of the Northern Territory. I would have expected some apology by the Government for the callous way in which it neglected the people of the Northern Territory. We heard no apologies for the contempt that it has shown for the Northern Territory. Most significantly, there has been no indication that the Government is ready in any way to change its attitude to the people of the Northern Territory or to remedy its neglect of them. All we have heard from this Minister today is a wild attack on the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, on his colleagues and on members of the Opposition for being so concerned about the welfare of the Northern Territory. I think of the most beautiful expression the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment used in Question Time today. He was asked why he did not get into consultation and negotiation with the people of the Northern Territory. His reply was: 'When it suits the Northern Territory Government, it sets us up in an unpleasant light.' Goodness me! Why is he feeling uncomfortable? Why does he feel as though he is in an unpleasant light? It is because he is embarrassed about what his own Government has done. He has a guilt complex. He is self- conscious. He knows that he cannot defend the attitudes of this Government to the people of the Northern Territory. When this Government was elected on 5 March the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a solemn promise to the nation. He promised-and he did so with all the sincerity that he could muster-that he would govern for all Australians. We heard the Minister saying a few minutes ago that the Government governed for all Australians. I can tell honourable members one lot of Australians who have been forgotten-the people of the Northern Territory. Since the election and since that great promise by the Prime Minister, we have seen him virtually break every promise he has made. It is a surprise to no one that he has broken the most important promise of all-the promise to govern for all Australians. That is the tragic truth of it. There is no integrity whatsoever in this Government. Slowly but surely it has become obvious that the Prime Minister and his Government believe that there are two classes of Australians. There are those who owe the Government their support and need the Government to survive, and there are the rest. If one is a member of the first group, one will get all the attention that the Government can offer . If one belongs to the trade union movement, the Government says: 'You're right , sport'. If one belongs to one of the environmental pressure groups the Government says: 'Okay, you can do what you like'. But if one happens to belong to the other group, one belongs to the lost group. The lowest of that lost group happens to be-in the eyes of this Government, at any rate-the Government of the Northern Territory and the people of the Northern Territory. The promise was to govern for all Australians. It is laughable. The people of the Northern Territory have been not only ignored by this Government but also treated like dirt, as far as the Government's promises are concerned. When this Government wants more money to spend on some of its sacred cows, who loses out? It is the people of the Northern Territory who lose out. The Government broke its promise concerning the Alice Springs to Darwin railway-a great national project. It would have created work. It would have been part of our national development, our national security. It did not matter that the present Government made promises during its election campaign; they are all broken now. When this Government wanted to find a way out of its embarrassing, unworkable policy on uranium, who paid? The people of the Northern Territory, of course. The Territory's future as a major exporter of uranium for peaceful purposes was scuttled by this Government in its decision last week. There is now no hope of Jabiluka and Koongarra coming on stream. The other two projects are slowly to be scaled down. It will cost the people of the Northern Territory hundreds of millions of dollars. It will not be just the white people of the Northern Territory who will lose. It will also be the Aboriginal people, particularly the people of the Northern Land Council, who came to an agreement on these mines and who would have stood to benefit to the value of something like $100m each year when all of these mines got going. But this Government completely disregarded that. What compensation will there be for these Aboriginals? What compensation will there be for the miners who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars preparing for these operations? None whatsoever. When this Government wants to show its concern for the environment or for the Aboriginal land rights people, who pays? It is not the trendies in Sydney and Melbourne who pay, but the people of the Northern Territory. There are many instances of this contempt, neglect and rejection of the Northern Territory people in general. A few minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition listed a few of them. I could talk about the price of petrol, which is so important to the people of the Northern Territory. They were promised a reduction of 3c a litre in the price of petrol. All they received was an increase. I could talk about the fuel oil levy that was introduced, the reduction in the fuel freight subsidy, the removal of the safe anchorages fuel subsidy, the slashing of the promised funds for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign and the threat to Northern Territory funding. The list goes on and on. The Government's promises were nothing more than blatant lies. The people of the Northern Territory now recognise this. The people of Wannon showed their concern. The people of Bruce did also. So did the people of Moreton. The people of Queensland showed their concern, and the people of the Northern Territory will do likewise on 3 December. This Government will not get away with it. The reason the Opposition proposed this matter of public importance is that we want to see some change in the attitude of the Government towards the people of the Northern Territory. They are fed up with being treated in such a contemptuous way by this Government. The very notification of the handing over of Uluru (Mount Olga-Ayers Rock) National Park to the Aboriginals was not even referred to the Chief Minister. It went through the Leader of the Opposition. What more contemptuous way could there be to treat the elected Government of the Northern Territory than through that single action? It is time the Government realised that there is a respected government in the Northern Territory-a very good government-and that if it wants to continue to treat Northern Territory people as it has they will express themselves on 3 December. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(4.27) -Every time the Northern Territory is debated in this House I have to give the Opposition a lesson in geography. Honeymoon mine, we were told a few weeks ago, was in the Northern Territory. Of course, it is not. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said in this chamber today that the Federal Government did not provide funds for the airports at Katherine and Tindal. For his information, Tindal is the airport for Katherine. So next time the Leader of the Opposition goes to the Northern Territory, I suggest that he spend more than a drunken day at the races, have a look around and get to know what the people of the Northern Territory are up to. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr REEVES —I withdraw that statement. The attitude of the Country-Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory towards the Federal Labor Government has been, from the outset, one of blind, hysterical antagonism. This attitude is in stark contrast to the apologetic, friendly and subservient attitude it took to the previous Fraser Liberal-National Party Government. It was the attitude of the previous Fraser Government towards the Northern Territory that was one of callous disregard. Let me remind honourable members of a few of the things the previous Government did to the people of the Northern Territory. Firstly, this time last year, or 15 months ago, it increased the diesel excise by 7.15c per litre. The Country- Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory hardly raised a whimper. Despite the disastrous effect that decision had on remote tourist operators and so many other people in the Northern Territory, it hardly raised a whimper. Over the last three or four years the former Liberal-National Party Government refused to make any funding commitment for major capital works in the Northern Territory, including the Darwin Airport, the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and the Alice Springs to Adelaide road that honourable members opposite spend so much time talking about. Let me tell honourable members opposite about the railway. The former Government had 30 years in which to do something about initiating the construction of one inch of railway line between Adelaide and the Northern Territory. The former Government did not initiate the construction of one inch of railway line in the Northern Territory. All it did was close down 500 kilometres of railway between Darwin and Pirdum in 1976. That is the record of the former Government on railways in the Northern Territory. Honourable members opposite should not come into this chamber piously telling us that they would have built the railway. Their record shows that not only did they not build railways; they also closed them down. When that happened the Country- Liberal Party again hardly raised a whimper. Let me quote what the Northern Territory Chief Minister said about the fact that there was no money in the last Budget for the Darwin Airport. Mr Everingham said: Although no specific mention was made of the Darwin airport, Federal Aviation Minister, Mr Wal Fife, said there would be no delay in the re-development. No money was allocated and no mention was made of the Darwin Airport yet the Country-Liberal Party hardly raised a whimper. Did it scream and complain about that as it did about the fact that, as they said, we will spend only $1.9m on the Darwin Airport this year? Not at all. Did it scream and shout about the fact that we made a commitment to spend $96m on the Darwin Airport, which they have still found reason to criticise? Not at all. Let us just look at what the previous Liberal Government did in relation to Uluru and Yulara, the two issues about which honourable members opposite now express so much concern. I quote from the Northern Territory News of 9 February last year which states: The Northern Territory has again asked the Federal Government to help fund increased Aboriginal participation in Central Australia's Uluru National Park. The Federal Government earlier had refused to help fund the program. The Chief Minister- Mr Leo McLeay —Which government is that? Mr REEVES —I am referring to members of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. Those honourable members come into this chamber now and tells us that they have so much concern for the Uluru National Park and the Yulara tourist village. I add that the article goes on to say that the Northern Territory Government was having extreme difficulty managing the park because of a lack of funds from the previous Liberal Government. Did the Northern Territory Government call an election over that issue? Not at all. Let me give just another example of the previous Liberal Party Government's attitude towards the Yulara area and the Uluru National Park. I quote from the Northern Territory News dated 19 March 1982 which states: The Commonwealth should pay for telecommunications and broadcasting facilities to the Yulara tourist village at Ayers Rock says Chief Minister Mr Everingham. Mr Everingham said the Commonwealth should reconsider its earlier decision that the facilities should be paid for by the Territory Government. Did the former Government call an election over that issue? Not at all. It did not call an election yet the Northern Territory was being deprived of basic communications facilities for this very important $150m tourist facility at the Yulara village. Before I go on to demonstrate that there is no substance at all for calling this election I refer to a statement made by the Chief Minister at a meeting of economists last year where he was talking about the terms of governments. Mr Everingham told his audience that the three-year term of office for Australian governments acted as a hindrance to reform. In particular his comments were directed towards reform of the taxation system. 'Our three year election system means that governments are constantly looking to short term public expectations', Mr Everingham said. The article goes on to state: Governments in the Northern Territory are elected for four-year terms. However, Mr Everingham sees the introduction of five-year terms for all parliaments as a way of allowing for the benefits of reform to be realised. He is going to an election after three and a half years, yet he wants five-year terms of parliament. As I have said, the callous disregard that the previous Government had for the Northern Territory is in complete contrast with the attitude that this Government has towards the Northern Territory. I wish now to run through some of the announcements made in the 1983-84 Labor Government's Budget for the Northern Territory; the biggest percentage increase in funding since self-government in the Territory. This year total funding for the Northern Territory was increased by $124m, up 17 per cent-the biggest percentage increase ever. Commonwealth funding now totals $850m. An amount of $ 480m was provided for the Channel Island power station. An amount of $64.7m was allocated for the electricity subsidy, up by $6.29m. Funding for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign was raised by $5.7m to $12.45m. The Royal Australian Air Force base Tindal was allocated $1.9m for continued planning. Housing funding was up by 41 per cent to $28m. Road funding was up 17 per cent to $35.9m. This Government allocated $5m to the route identification study for the Alice Springs to Darwin railway which is more than the previous Liberal Government allocated in all its years of government. We allocated $5.3m for the Rum Jungle rehabilitation project and $100,000 for remote area airlines. We introduced the zone allowance for pensioners in remote areas-in zone A tax areas -and so it goes on. The fact is that the only government that has shown any callous disregard towards the Northern Territory people is the previous Liberal- National Party Government. I have not made it my life study to read the words of Adolf Hitler but I am told that he had something like this to say in his book Mein Kampf: 'The great masses of people will more readily accept a big lie than a little lie'. I suggest that that epitomises the Northern Territory Government's attitude towards its own people. Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr Cohen —Sit down, you mug! Mr REEVES —It is a lie that the Federal Government-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I will hear the honourable member for Darling Downs on a point of order. Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take two points of order. Firstly, I ask the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to withdraw the terrible words he has just said about me. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory whether he was quoting when he made his first comment. Mr REEVES —No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not quoting. Mr McVeigh —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment called me a mug. I ask that that statement be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I did not hear that statement. I was trying to hear what the honourable member for the Northern Territory was saying. Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, he did say it. Ask him. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the Minister to withdraw that statement. Mr McVeigh —He said it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is that your point of order? Mr McVeigh —No, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is one of my points of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the honourable member please make clear what is his point of order? Mr Cohen —I withdraw the remark so that the honourable member for the Northern Territory can get on with his speech. Mr McVeigh —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has withdrawn-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member should get on with his other point of order. Mr McVeigh —I accept that from a mug when he calls me a mug. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member please state his point of order? Mr McVeigh —The point of order is that we are talking about a matter of public importance concerning the Northern Territory. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is quoting from a book from Germany. I find that that is completely irrelevant. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr REEVES —I want to run through a few statistics to indicate how much of a lie it is that the Northern Territory Government-the Country-Liberal Party Government-has apparently done so well for the Northern Territory since it came to government. The level of home ownership in Australia is 68.1 per cent. In the Northern Territory it is 30.8 per cent-less than half. Over the past three decades population growth in the Northern Territory has been as follows: In the 1950s, 5.6 per cent; in the 1960s, 6.9 per cent; and since self-government, 4.2 per cent-which is down between one per cent and 3 per cent. In the 1950s exports from the Territory increased 47.4 per cent; in the 1960s, 45.3 per cent; and since self-government 23.4 per cent-some 20 per cent to 30 per cent down. State taxes in the Northern Territory have gone up from $19m in 1978 to $42m-an increase of 120 per cent. Electricity charges in the Northern Territory have gone up 52 per cent in the past two years. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 212th report of the Committee, relating to Finance Minute on Report 203-Medical fraud and overservicing, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CADMAN —The 212th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's earlier report No. 203-a progress report on medical fraud and overservicing. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used by the Government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's progress report on medical fraud and overservicing was tabled in Parliament on 9 December 1982. It contained 45 re- commendations directed at streamlining and strengthening both administrative procedures and existing legislation. The report examined the effectiveness of existing legislation, procedures for dealing with abuse of the medical benefits system and discussion on other associated problems. The 203rd report raised a number of fundamental issues of public administration which extended well beyond the specific area of medical fraud and overservicing. These included the overall performance of the Department of Health, the general relationship between central and State offices of departments, and the adequacy of the current legal system in coping with white collar crime. While the Committee notes the considerable progress made to combat fraud and overservicing , it believes that there are still significant areas where further improvements need to be made. For example, it appears that the Department of Health has more than doubled its positions dedicated to reducing medical fraud and overservicing from 94, as at June 1982, to 205, as at October 1983. However in the crucial area of staff devoted to development of the Department's fraud and overservicing detection system or FODS, there has been to date no increase in the number of people permanently filling positions, although the number of positions has increased from seven to 16. Similarly the Australian Federal Police has applied to the Public Service Board for an extra 50 positions to be dedicated to medical fraud and overservicing. This is in addition to a request for another 149 general positions in 1982-83 and 230 positions in 1983-84. The Committee will be monitoring the Board's consideration of these positions. Furthermore, while the Attorney-General's Department has created an additional 12 positions to deal with medical fraud and overservicing-a move welcomed by the Committee-at present only three of these have been permanently filled; the rest are filled by personnel on an acting basis or on temporary transfer. The Committee considers that most senior officers in the Department of Health, the Australian Federal Police and the Attorney-General's Department now acknowledge the complexity and magnitude of the effort required to deal with medical fraud and overservicing in the Australian community. The Committee welcomes the establishment of the Surveillance and Investigation Division in the Department of Health, and a Central Co-ordinating Committee and State co-ordinating groups containing representatives of the Department of Health, the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is clear that the development of the fraud and overservicing detection system, FODS, is of paramount importance to the success of efforts to combat medical fraud and overservicing. The Committee is not convinced that adequate resources are currently being devoted to this task. At present the Department of Health's 14 main FODS development activities may take up to 230 man months to complete. The Committee noted with interest the National Prosecutor's Seminar conducted by the Attorney-General's Department in April 1983. The Committee believes it is necessary for such a seminar to be held regularly in order to update and share knowledge of prosecution information among relevant Commonwealth officers. The Committee has been informed that 37 medical practitioner disqualification actions were in progress as at 30 September 1983. A breakdown of the Central Co- ordinating Committee's case load as at September 1983 reveals: Firstly, a substantial overall increase in medifraud cases-502 in total; secondly, higher medifraud case loads in New South Wales and Victoria relative to other States; and thirdly, a considerable backlog of cases, 239 in all, listed more than 6 months ago, await action in the Department of Health. I now turn to the Medicare national health scheme. It should be emphasised that the Committee cannot and does not question the adequacy of Government policies but is concerned with their administrative implementation. During discussions with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the Committee was informed that the current departmental estimate of the cost of fraud and overservicing by doctors is in the vicinity of $120m per annum. It is noted that at least one professional medical society believes this estimate should be closer to $200m per annum. The Committee believes that resources in the Department of Health currently devoted to investigation and prevention of medical fraud and overservicing should not be diverted to aid the introduction of Medicare. Efforts to control and reduce medical fraud and overservicing are a necessary complement to the introduction and successful operation of the Medicare scheme. The Committee is pleased to see legislation being introduced to implement many of its re- commendations. However, it notes with concern that the Department of Health has not made significant progess in implementing the new overservicing committee system referred to in the Finance minute. The Public Accounts Committee acknowledges that extensive new legislation may be required to implement a new overservicing committee system but believes such legislation will be vital to the containment of medical benefit costs under the Medicare scheme. The Committee notes that latest official estimates suggest a markedly higher supply of doctors in the coming years. It remains concerned that, as mechanisms to control and reduce medical fraud become more effective, there will be an increase in the level of overservicing by medical practitioners. The Committee's inquiry into medical fraud and overservicing is continuing and I look forward to presenting the final report to Parliament next year. I commend this report to honourable members. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-As the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts at the time of the initiation of this inquiry and the subsequent tabling of its report in Parliament on 9 December 1982, I compliment the Department of Health, the Department of Finance and, of course, my colleagues on the Committee for the speed with which they have put together this response. It is unique in my experience to see a major inquiry responded to in such a short time. Nevertheless, with the passage of time since December last year and with the implementation now of a new policy in relation to Medicare, I think some of the recommendations in our initial preliminary report need to be seen in the context of the introduction of Medicare in particular. I noted with some interest the observations made by the Department of Finance in the context of the fraud and overservicing detection system. The Committee has also noted that it inspected the works program of the Department of Health but there seems to be, as the Vice-Chairman of the Committee the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) pointed out, some concern that not sufficient financial or personnel resources have yet been made available for the implementation of FODS. As the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is in the chamber no doubt he will make some further observations on this question. I cannot emphasise too strongly the need for an effective FODS. However, it is also fair to point out that it is being applied to the medical practitioners of Australia. It is only right that I should also emphasise to the Minister, if he is not aware of it, that at present there is a considerable degree of concern among members of the medical profession that they will be subjected to a very significant degree of departmental and bureaucratic overview on the presumption that they are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. I am certain that is not the basis upon which any government would wish to conduct its policies. I have no doubt that the Minister will therefore have some observations to make on this matter. I emphasise that is definately the view which many doctors currently have in relation to the interface between their private practices and the Department of Health's overview machinery. Comment was also made about the Department of Health's Victorian office. In our initial report we emphasised the point that there was a significant need for urgent improvement in the effectiveness of that office. For example, we made observations on the lack of a cohesive team approach being used for the attainment of divisional and departmental goals and objectives. As the Vice- Chairman of the Committee has already pointed out, one of the interesting things about the report was that it demonstrated the type of fundamental weakness that one can find within departments of state. It is a problem for all Ministers in government have a fundamental responsibility. The implementation of policy within their departments must be taken more seriously. Nevertheless, activity is proceeding in that area. I have noted with interest the observations made by the Department of Finance in relation to alleged improvements taking place within the Department of Health's office in Melbourne. I was very pleased to notice the question of co-operation between the Commonwealth and State governments in relation to the introduction of uniform medical registration legislation. This is something which the Committee very strongly believed, and I certainly believe, is necessary to overcome the difficulties which could be created on the question of doctors being permitted to be registered to practise in various States of the Commonwealth. Therefore, there is a need to monitor developments in relation to uniform medical registration legislation. I also notice that the review of the medical benefits scheme is long overdue. That was one of the important recommendations we made in the original report. I watch with interest the activities of the Government in that particular area. I will briefly make some remarks about the question of direct billing. When this matter was debated in relation to the introduction of the Medicare legislation, I recall that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who is at the table, and I spoke at length about the difficulties of bulk billing and our firm belief that it would further encourage, if anything, an extension of the tendency towards overservicing. I have seen nothing in the Government's program to date which would give me reason to believe that that will not be the situation. As the Committee has noted in its report today, the supply of doctors in my view has to be correlated with the question of direct billing and how the two can be interrelated to assure the Australian people that there will be sufficient doctors to give a reasonable level of service while not at the same time encouraging some doctors to feel that if they want to maintain a satisfactory level of income the best way to do that is by going down the road of bulk billing with all the opportunities for possible fraud and overservicing which we believe such a system can introduce. Nevertheless, the other point worth making in that context is that there has been a tendency, I understand, for some doctors to believe that by not co- operating they may improve their situation. I think it is only fair to warn the medical profession that there are elements in the present Government who are firmly of the view that if they have any excuse whatsoever to be able to demonstrate that there has been an increase in fraud and overservicing they will then bring into this Parliament proposals to ensure that private practice in Australia will be seen as something of the past, the alternative they prefer being that all doctors should be paid a fixed salary. I have no doubt that the long term health service for the Australian people would suffer greatly if that should be the ultimate outcome of government policy. Finally, I compliment again my colleagues and the departmental officers involved in this most significant investigation. It was one of the most important and difficult reports which I had the pleasure and honour to introduce into this Parliament during the eight years I served on the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to reading the final report. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —by leave-Since I joined this Parliament earlier this year I have been a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. The medical fraud and overservicing report has been a very large part of the work that the Committee has done since then. I would like to draw the attention of members of the Parliament to the work which it still has to do. It is listed in the Finance minute as: Patient fraud; fraud associated with hospitals; fraud and overservicing associated with the prescription of pharmaceuticals; fraud and overservicing associated with pathology; unnecessary surgery; the possible strengthening of the legislation with respect to medical fraud; possible measures to reduce growth in the number of doctors; peer review mechanisms and the development of guidelines for the use of specific medical procedures; modification of the medical benefits system to reduce incentives for overservicing; revision of the Medical Benefits Schedule; and medical education. Those items obviously present the Committee with a good deal more work before the report is finally completed. I would like to mention the items which are of great importance to the continuation of the system of improving medical services within this country. I make it quite plain to all those people who are concerned about the system that medical care is not an opportunity for people to acquire an extremely high income which is not to the benefit of the public purse. In that context, the finding on page 4 that the Committee is surprised at the relatively small number of specialist medical colleges and associations which have indicated their willingness to advise the Department of Health is one which continues to surprise me. The Committee has been open to advice and submission from every area of the medical profession in its attempt to make it quite plain that the medical profession, as such, is not under the microscope for fraud and overservicing. But the areas of the medical profession of which most people disapprove, that is, the people who represent the honest medical practitioners, should be willing to assist the Committee and the Department of Health in their inquiries. I bring this to the attention of the Parliament and hope that the members of the medical colleges and associations who have not yet offered their assistance to the Committee in developing recommendations which will help all of them in providing services properly to the community will be moved to do so fairly soon in respect of the further inquiries which the Committee will make. In the area of medical education it seems very important that the notions of overservicing should be considered fairly carefully. A point has been made to the Committee that quite frequently young graduates in their anxiety to serve their patients well may possibly go over the line from good servicing to overservicing. It is a function of medical education to advise students and young graduates about the practices which they may pursue. I believe that the Committee will be making recommendations to that effect fairly strongly in the next year. We already have a fairly solid growth in the number of doctors. It is becoming a matter of concern to the community that we have more doctors than is necessary to serve the community. We would like to find out whether that is so, or whether it is simply a matter of supposition. Unnecessary surgery is a subject which has been raised so many times. It has created so much anxiety in the community that we would like to have some considerable advice about that subject because it does seem to be a matter of opinion. When one compares practices in Australia with practices elsewhere there is some reason to be concerned about that matter. However, I recommend the report to honourable members. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), has said, the report has covered many years of work by many people, and the work continues. I hope at the end of the work we will have a better medical system in this country. Ministerial Statement Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-I wish to inform the House of action already taken or being taken by the Government to deal with the serious problems of medical benefits fraud and overservicing. The Government has already made it clear that it will not tolerate these abuses and that it is very serious about its intentions significantly to reduce the magnitude of the problems. Medicare will be a major social reform designed to provide all Australians with security against the costs of basic health care services in a more equitable, logical and administratively efficient manner. However, it is necessary that strong measures to combat abuses of these arrangements should also be an integral part of Medicare. I should emphasise that measures to combat fraud and overservicing are necessary whether health insurance arrangements are based on a single public fund, as will be the case with Medicare, or on private health insurance funds as is currently the case. Indeed, I must point out that the measures proposed by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for dealing with the major problems of medical fraud and overservicing were put forward during the former Government's term of office and in the context of the current health insurance arrangements. In announcing details of the Government's plans for curbing medical benefits fraud and overservicing, I wish to make it quite clear to the House that those plans do not in any way constitute an attack on the medical profession as such. The Government is keenly aware that the great majority of members of that profession are people of integrity and are highly dedicated to the care of their patients. The place of those doctors in our community will continue to be respected and they have nothing to fear from the measures which I will outline to the House. However, it is also a most regrettable fact that some members of the medical profession are abusing their position of trust in the community and the high standards of their profession. It is these persons against whom the Government's actions are directed. In approaching the task of combating medical fraud and overservicing, the Government has been greatly assisted by reference to progress report No. 203-' Medical Fraud and Overservicing'-by the Public Accounts Committee as previously constituted. This report has been of great value in the planning of measures to overcome these problems, and on behalf of the Government I wish to express appreciation of the work of that Committee. In accordance with established procedures, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has forwarded to the Chairman of the current Committee a Finance minute containing responses to the recommendations contained in the report. This Finance minute was tabled in the Parliament today. Concerning the magnitude of these problems, the Public Accounts Committee's report noted an estimate by the Department of Health that fraud and overservicing account for 'at least $100m per annum', based on data derived from medical benefits claims paid during 1980-81. Although the Committee described that estimate as 'far from precise', it expressed a belief that the estimate was 'conservative'. I now wish to inform the House that the estimate has since been calculated again using data from the 1981-82 financial year. The method of calculation was the same as that used to deduce the original estimate of $100m for 1980-81. Details of the methodology were set out in my Department's submission to the Public Accounts Committee. In brief, the methodology was as follows: My Department calculated for each doctor in the country the average schedule fee cost per quarter per patient. This was then compared with the average cost calculated for other doctors in the same branch of medicine and in the same State, whose schedule fee cost was more than $4,000 in the same quarter. In those cases where an individual doctor's average cost per patient exceeded that of his peers, the difference was multiplied by the number of patients he saw in the quarter and then summed for all such individual doctors. This gives a total deviation figure which is comprised of legitimate deviation, resultant from the unique practice circumstances of individual doctors, and a large proportion of the total fraud and overservicing. The difficult part of the exercise then is to determine how much of the total deviation figure is fraud and overservicing and how much is legitimate. Based on observation of the distribution of cost per patient across doctors, which indicates that the majority of the deviation is contributed by a relatively small number of doctors with very high individual deviation figures or substantially higher average cost per patient, and on the experience of departmental officers who examine doctors' profiles, it is estimated that the legitimate causes of deviation could account for up to one-third of the total deviation. After allowing for legitimate deviation, a conservative estimate of the cost of fraud and overservicing to the Australian community in respect of 1981-82 was $120m, an increase of $20m over the previous year. The original method has now been refined, for general practitioners only, to incorporate more rigorous statistical techniques thus eliminating two sources of conjecture, namely, the selection of an acceptable base point from which to measure deviation and the extent of acceptable deviation around that base point. To achieve a true or typical base point, the average cost per patient of general practitioners in each State was calculated from that subset of doctors left after excluding those whose practice patterns exhibit unusual features. The acceptable range was then determined as being the average plus or minus 1.6 or 2 .0 standard deviations. It should be noted that in New South Wales, for example, the average cost per patient and the standard deviation of average cost per patient for all full time general practitioners is $31 and $28 respectively, whereas the same figures for the normal subset are $26 and $5 respectively. Using 1.6 and 2.0 standard deviations as the acceptable spread around the average and extrapolating to include all specialities, the deviations obtained are $150m and $130m respectively. As the method is designed to eliminate, on a statistical basis, legitimate deviation as a component of total deviation, the result fully supports the estimate of $120m as a conservative estimate of fraud and overservicing. However, this does not imply an increase in the overall scale of fraud and overservicing, but reflects an increase in the schedule fee cost between 1980-81 and 1981-82. In proportionate terms, the estimate for 1981-82 is at about the same level as that for 1980-81. As announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the 1983-84 Budget Speech, expenditure on measures to counter fraud and overservicing in relation to medical insurance will be increased from about $4m to about $8m per annum. The Government is very conscious that this is a high level of expenditure which should be unnecessary in an ideal world. However, the realities of the present situation are that relatively heavy expenditures are necessary if we are to mount a concerted attack on these complex problems, and those expenditures must be measured against our current losses of around $120m a year. I should also point out that some action towards the allocation of increased resources to combat medical fraud and overservicing was initiated by the former Government, even before the tabling of the progress report of the Public Accounts Committee. To illustrate the magnitude of the particular problem of medical benefits fraud and overservicing and to indicate the difficulty of overcoming that problem, I draw to the attention of honourable members the statistics appended in tables 1 to 4. I seek leave to have these tables incorported in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 MEDIFRAUD CASELOAD AT 1 OCTOBER 1983 Suspected provider fraud matters listed for, or under active investigation with Department of Health 382 Provider fraud matters referred by Department of Health to Australian Federal Police for further investigation/prosecution 53 Provider fraud matters referred by the Australian Federal Police to the Deputy Crown Solicitors for institution of proceedings 31 Provider fraud matters before the courts, awaiting hearing or appeal 30 Table 2 REFERRALS OF PROVIDER FRAUD TO THE POLICE BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR LAST THREE YEARS 1 July 1980-30 June 1981 47 1 July 1981-30 June 1982 47 1 July 1982-30 June 1983 55 1 July 1983-30 September 1983 (Quarter year only) 32 Table 3 PROSECUTIONS OF PROVIDERS FOR MEDICAL FRAUD OFFENCES FOR LAST THREE YEARS Charges proven but no Unsuccess- Convictions conviction ful Total 1 July 1980-30 June 1981 12 3 1 16 1 July 1981-30 June 1982 10 9 1 20 1 July 1982-30 June 1983 5 8 8 21 1 July 1983-30 September 1983 1 4 0 5 62 Table 4 NUMBER OF DOCTORS COUNSELLED AND EXAMINED FOR OVERSERVICING-1 JULY 1975 TO 30 SEPTEMBER 1983 No. of Cases Doctors counselled with respect to possible overservicing (since April 1977) 3774 Cases currently before Committees of Inquiry 38 Committee of Inquiry cases completed 60 Ministerial determination* 31 Awaiting Referral to Committees of Inquiry 61 * In response to recommendations of a Committee of Inquiry the Minister is able to determine that the doctor be reprimanded, further counselling take place, benefits be repaid or benefits be withheld. Dr BLEWETT —In particular, honourable members may note that at the end of September this year 382 persons, mainly medical practitioners, were listed for preliminary investigation by my Department. At the same date 53 other cases were with the Australian Federal Police for formal investigation and a further 61 persons were before the courts or receiving attention by Deputy Crown Solicitors . On the overservicing side of the problem, 61 doctors are awaiting referral to medical services committees of inquiry, and 38 cases are currently before the committees. During recent months, considerable progress has been made in planning and undertaking action to deal with medical fraud and overservicing, with first priority being given to medical fraud. This has included the allocation of substantially increased personnel and other resources, improved direction and co-ordination of action, and the upgrading of training programs. One of the more general matters addressed in the report of the Public Accounts Committee was the management system of the Department of Health. I am pleased to inform honourable members that the overall administrative efficiency of the Department has been reviewed and a number of initiatives have been taken to give new direction and thrust to the Department. These include the following measures : A review of the top structure in Central Office and Regional Offices to strengthen performance of the Department's administrative functions; the development of specified goals and objectives for the Department and for its constituent divisions, branches and regional offices; the appointment of management consultants to review goals and objectives, to develop management-by- objectives protocols and to recommend management information systems for development within the Department; the appointment of consultants to review the Department's total training and staff development programs and to develop a long -term staff development plan; the institution of a program for the review of departmental program guidelines; the appointment of a management committee, chaired by the Director-General of Health, to overview the management and operations of the Department; and greater co-ordination between central office and regional offices in relation to uniformity of decisions and procedures for the administration of programs. In relation to personnel, my Department's central investigation teams, consisting of six experienced investigators, was formed early this year to make rapid inroads on the considerable backlog of matters needing investigation to determine whether medifraud was involved. The team operates nationally as an adjunct to the Department's regional investigation teams: It commenced operations in April this year and had already completed investigations of over 94 suspected fraud cases, leading to 28 briefs of evidence being referred to the Australian Federal Police. In my Department's regional offices the total number of positions allocated to activities related to medical fraud and overservicing has been increased this year from 76 to 146. The development of these positions in each State is set out in table 5. I seek leave to have table 5 incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 5 SURVEILLANCE AND INVESTIGATION POSITIONS-STATES Medical Investigation Monitoring Committee Counsellors OIC Support Group Group Support Total New South Wales 5 1 1 16 16 6 45 Victoria 3 1 1 11 11 5 32 Queensland 1.5 1 1 7 7 4 21.5 South Australia 1 1 1 7 5 4 19 Western Australia 1 1 2 7 5 4 20 Tasmania 0.5 1 1 2 2 2 8.5 12 6 7 50 46 25 146 Note: 1. Investigation Group comprises 42 Investigation Officers and 8 Support Staff. 2. Further Investigation Officers (2 in Sydney and 2 in Melbourne) are outposted from the Central Task Force and will, when not engaged on Task Force duties, supplement State Investigation Groups. 3. Committee Support consists of 25 positions involved in fraud and overservicing activities. A further 9 positions are included in the States organisation to provide support to unrelated statutory committees such as Specialist Recognition Advisory Committees and Nursing Homes Fees Review Committees: these positions are not shown above. Dr BLEWETT —These staff fall into five main categories with the following broad functions: Medical counsellors who provide advice and guidance to doctors on the requirements of the medical benefits system. Monitoring staff who analyse computer-generated reports on the practice patterns of doctors, and who refer suspected fraud cases to investigators or suspected overservicing cases to medical counsellors. Investigators who follow up allegations by the public and information received from the monitoring staff by interviewing patients to establish whether offences have occurred, who refer evidence to the police, and who assist in the execution of warrants and in court prosecutions. Committee secretariat staff who support the meetings of the existing eight medical services committees of inquiry around Australia which provide peer assessment of suspected overservicing by doctors; and State officers-in-charge and their administrative support staff, who manage operations in their respective regions, under guidelines from the Department's Central Office. Of these 146 regional positions, placements in 99 are finalised; a further 16 are at the point of promotion or appointment; 18 are awaiting Public Service promotion appeal hearings; and 13 are subject to selection decisions or readvertisement. The Department expects to have these regional sections up to full complement by about the end of March 1984. The Department's Central Office fraud and overservicing area has been reorganised into a new Surveillance and Investigation Division, increasing from 24 to 59 positions. Table 6 shows their deployment. I seek leave to have table 6 incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 6: Surveillance and Investigation Positions-Central Office Fraud and Overservicing Detection System Design and Developoment 16 Overservicing Committees and Review Tribunals Administration 7 Overservicing Project Development 7 Fraud Investigation and Training 9 Fraud Prosecution Project Development 4 Fraud Disqualification and Administration 9 Divisional Management and Principal Medical Officer 7 59 Dr BLEWETT —The positions fall into the following seven main categories: Fraud and overservicing detection system design and development staff who are to refine the current computer-based monitoring system, as well as training regional officers in its use. Overservicing committees and review tribunals staff who deal with formal submissions on findings of committees of inquiry, committee and tribunal appointments, and other administration related to the current overservicing control system. Overservicing project development staff who will design and specify the details of the new overservicing control system, to which I will refer later in this statement. Fraud investigation and training staff, who include the investigators in the central investigation team, with a small group to run the investigation evaluation and training program for the Department. Fraud prosecution project staff who will examine every aspect of the existing legislation to insure that prosecutions do not fail through ambiguities or technical loopholes in the law. Fraud disqualification and administration staff who prepare the procedures and guidelines for regional offices and who will administer disqualification cases as they begin to come through courts early in 1984, as well as handling day to day administration in relation to representations, allegations and similar matters. Divisional management staff including the divisional and branch heads and a principal medical officer. The Central Office positions were advertised in September and are currently being filled. The net effect of this reorganisation in both regional and central offices is that surveillance and investigation positions in the Department have increased to 205 from 100 this year, and will be fully operational by about May 1984. Honourable members will realise that, in dealing with medical fraud, two other agencies are directly involved, namely, the Australian Federal Police and the Crown Solicitor's Office. An extra $4m was allocated in the Budget this financial year to enable the Australian Federal Police to recruit extra staff. The Special Minister of State has authorised me to say that, in deploying the increased personnel that will become available following training, the Commissioner will take account of the priority to be accorded to the investigation of medical fraud. An external review is also getting under way to look at the AFP's deployment of present staff and future requirements. It is expected that this will produce long term benefits in major areas of investigation such as medical fraud. Concerning legal officers to deal with medical fraud cases, the Public Service Board has approved an increase of 12 positions in deputy crown solicitors' offices. These comprise three principal legal officers, seven senior legal officers and two support staff. Eight of the legal officer positions are occupied-some on an acting basis-and it is expected that the remaining positions will be filled in the near future. Another particular matter which has come to attention through the recent focus on medical fraud is the need for improved co-ordination between the Department of Health, the Australian Federal Police and the Crown Solicitor's Office. Accordingly, those three organisations have established special joint co- ordination bodies-a central co-ordinating committee based in Canberra and a co- ordinating group in each State. These bodies have been operational for some months and it is considered that they are making a significant contribution to the effective operation of measures to combat medical fraud. In particular, these co-ordinating bodies have been able jointly to address some of the operational problems which confronted the three organisations in the past. They have been able to monitor the numbers of investigation and prosecution cases, have achieved a better utilisation of staff resources and have greatly facilitated the exchange of information between the three agencies so as to promote joint effort. The Department's Central Office has issued further guidelines and procedures for regional offices, covering matters such as disqualification procedures, presentation of evidence in fraud cases, monitoring and reporting systems, security and central investigation team operations. In relation to legislation, regulations are currently being drafted to ensure that a practitioner who claims benefits for a professional service to a patient but does not actually see the patient-for example, where a repeat prescription is provided without any consultation-is more clearly liable to prosecution than at present. It is expected that these regulations will come into operation on 1 December. I should also mention that regulations have been made to provide that benefits are not payable unless certain basic information appears on practitioners' accounts and receipts or, in the case of direct billing, their assignment forms. These regulations were gazetted on 31 October and will operate from 1 February next year. The information required by these regulations will include the provider number allocated by the Department of Health to a particular practitioner. It is expected that this requirement will be opposed by some members of the medical profession. However, I should point out that the use of provider numbers on accounts and receipts is already practised by many doctors, was the subject of a specific recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee, is based on a regulation-making power which was introduced by the former Government, and is an important measure to improve the accuracy of data necessarily collected by my Department for administrative purposes. Honourable members will also be aware that, by the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1983, which recently received royal assent, a new provision-section 127-is to be introduced in the Health Insurance Act. The effect of this new provision will be that, in relation to direct billing under Medicare, any practitioner who obtains a patient's signature on a blank or incomplete assignment form or who fails to give the patient a copy of the completed assignment form will be liable to prosecution. The penalty prescribed is a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for a period up to three months, or both. It is expected that this will be a strong deterrent against abuses of the direct billing arrangements under Medicare. Last year, under the former Government, legislation providing for the automatic disqualification from the medical benefits arrangements of doctors found by a court to have committed fraud on two or more occasions came into operation. The prescribed period of disqualification is three years. I wish to inform honourable members that 37 practitioners already face such disqualification if prosecutions currently proposed or pending are successful in the courts. Another matter which is receiving increasing attention within my Department concerns the further refinement of the computer-based system for detecting possible cases of fraud and overservicing and the organisational system for its effective utilisation. Improvements are currently being incorporated into this fraud and overservicing detection system and planning is under way for upgrading the system to increase its operational efficiency. The increases in personnel which I have already outlined include provision for this activity. Special training programs have also been introduced for personnel concerned with measures to combat fraud and overservicing, and these will be progressively improved in the light of experience. The Department of Health held a medical benefits fraud investigation training course for 21 officers in September. Earlier this year, the Department combined with the Australian Federal Police on two courses and with the Crown Solicitor's Office on one course, covering the investigation and prosecution of medical benefits fraud. Induction courses and basic training on the computer-based fraud and overservicing detection system are also currently in progress for new staff in all regions of the Department of Health. This initial program will be largely completed by mid-December, but further training in the more complex aspects of the fraud and overservicing detection system will continue throughout the remainder of this financial year. In relation to overservicing-more correctly referred to as 'excessive servicing '-my Department is currently working on the development of a new system for dealing with this very complex problem. Last year a special working party was set up to explore suggestions for improvements in the arrangements for dealing with overservicing. The working party comprises officers of the Attorney-General 's Department and the Department of Health and representatives of the Australian Medical Association. The deliberations of the working party have now reached the point where preparation of its report, for consideration by the Government and by professional organisations, is currently under way. I understand that the report will give particular attention to the following matters: Extensions of measures for educating medical practitioners-especially newly graduated practitioners-in the operation of the Medicare arrangements, with particular reference to the question of overservicing; the systematic provision of information to professional organisations regarding apparent overservicing trends and practices which give rise to concern by the Department of Health, so that those organisations may seek to exert peer pressures where they consider it appropriate to do so; the establishment of a new system of tribunals which would replace the current system of medical services committees of inquiry; and appeals from decision of those tribunals would be to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rather than to the existing medical services review tribunals. With regard to the possibility of a new system of tribunals, it is likely that the following matters will receive consideration: the tribunals-at least one in each State-might operate on a full-time basis, that is, during normal working hours and as required to meet demand for consideration of cases referred to them ; the tribunals might comprise three members-a legally qualified chairperson plus two medically qualified members, the latter selected from a panel of practitioners in the same branch of medicine as the practitioner whose practice is under consideration; the tribunals could be decision-making bodies with power to order repayment of benefits by practitioners found to have overserviced. There could be a right of appeal against a tribunal's decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; the tribunals could be authorised to conduct their proceedings in a relatively informal and flexible manner, not bound by rules of evidence; provision could be made for the tribunals to order the Department of Health and the practitioner under referral to participate in a closed preliminary conference before any formal hearing, in order to identify matters in dispute and to explore whether there are any prospects for settlement without a formal hearing. Of course, it will be necessary for details of any proposed new system to receive consideration by Cabinet before implementation. I should also mention that, in its examination of suggestions for a new system for dealing with overservicing, my Department has been paying close attention to the relevant recommendations contained in the Public Accounts Committee progress report No. 203. All the elements which I have mentioned-the allocation of increased resources, improved co-ordination, improved detection and training programs, and so on-are being drawn together to constitute a special new surveillance and investigation program. This program will have a basic objective of substantially reducing the problems of fraud and overservicing within a period of approximately five years, and with provision for a progress report to the Government by the end of 1985. It may seem that the five-year period set for this program is unduly lengthy. However, the problems of medical fraud and overservicing are of considerable magnitude and complexity. A realistic assessment clearly indicates that quick remedies cannot be expected. As I have already mentioned, there are particular difficulties involved in developing a new system for dealing with overservicing. This is partly due to the fact that subjective judgments are required to decide whether or not services provided were reasonably necessary for the adequate medical care of the patient. The Government is also very conscious of the need to ensure that the operation of any new system does not create situations where doctors are deterred from providing their patients with an adequate level of care and attention. Furthermore, it is necessary to recognise that sometimes practitioners may be placed in a position where a patient directly or indirectly seeks services which could reasonably be regarded as unnecessary. Another important elementary point is that, although intentional overservicing by a doctor clearly constitutes serious abuse, no criminal offence is involved because the services have been given. These types of issues present substantial problems in the development of a new system for tackling the difficult and sensitive topic of overservicing. In relation to cases of fraud, one area of concern is that of delays in having these cases dealt with by the courts. With the significantly increased activity to be undertaken in this area, the number of prosecutions for medical fraud can be expected to rise considerably. It remains to be seen whether our legal system is able to deal with the increased number of cases without unacceptable delays. Notwithstanding obstacles such as these, the Government is firmly resolved to break the back of the problems of medical fraud and overservicing, which are so costly to the Australian community and which are entirely contrary to the principles on which the practice of medicine is founded. The Government welcomes the resumption of the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into these and related matters. The Committee may be assured that its proceedings will receive the Government's close and continuing attention. It may also be of interest to honourable members that the Government has taken and is taking certain measures to deal with abuses related to payments in respect of private hospitals, nursing homes and pharmaceuticals. During the current sitting, amendments were made to the Health Insurance Act to provide substantial penalties in a situation where the proprietor of a private hospital and a doctor conspire to benefit financially from the admission of a patient to a private hospital. In addition, there are new legislative provisions that tighten up the control of the Commonwealth bed-day subsidy payments. For example , the subsidy will not be paid for a length of stay of less than eight hours, and there are strengthened powers for the inspection of records of private hospitals and to obtain information relevant to the private hospital or the payment of the daily bed subsidy. Apart from these legislative changes, steps have been taken by my Department to provide a more secure computer claims processing system for private hospital subsidies from 1 February 1984. A greater range of pre-payment checks will be made on the validity of claims, and a broader range of computer-generated statistical reports for use as guides to unusual or fraudulent claiming patterns will be produced. Concerning nursing homes, the present system of funding provides little incentive to proprietors to contain costs. Indeed, there is evidence that some proprietors inflate their costs or underincur approved expenditure such as wages , as a means of increasing their profits. A consultancy conducted for my Department in 1982 as a first stage of identifying the actual costs of providing nursing home care found wide variations in costs between similar nursing homes both within States and between States. The consultants concluded that some of these variations could no doubt be explained by fraudulent practices. Further, there have been a number of allegations against nursing home proprietors for having 'ghost' staff on their payrolls. Of course, this practice means not only that fees are higher than justified but also that patient care suffers. A wages reconciliation program conducted by a regional office of my Department over the past year has led to significant fee reductions since many nursing homes were being overcompensated in their approved fees for the wage and salary costs they were actually incurring. Savings of the order of $2.5m are expected in a full year in that State. This reconciliation program is now being introduced in all States. My Department has conducted validations of the costs of selected nursing homes to ensure that the costs allowed for in the fees are actually being incurred and are related to the provision of nursing home care. These validations take considerable manpower and time and so, to date, they have been conducted largely on an ad hoc basis. Provision was made in the 1983-84 Budget for my Department to engage a consultant to undertake a detailed examination of the actual costs of a sample of nursing homes. This will include identification of any fraudulent practices or overcompensation in fees for actual costs incurred, and will provide proposals for improved methods to detect and investigate nursing home fraud in a systematic manner. The final results of this consultancy are not likely to be available for about 12 months. The present administration of the nursing home funding arrangements is consuming increasing staffing resources as it necessitates officers of my Department investigating many detailed aspects of the cost structures of nursing homes. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of incentive or reward for proprietors to seek to provide cost-effective quality care. However, it is the policy of the Government to replace these cumbersome arrangements with a system of residential care program grants. I turn now to the pharmaceutical benefits area. My Department for some years has employed a number of pharmacists in its regional offices whose primary role is regularly to visit doctors and pharmacists in relation to the prescribing and supply of pharmaceutical benefits. These visits to doctors are aimed at ensuring compliance with restrictions applicable to the prescribing of pharmaceutical benefit items, to counsel doctors with a view to answering their queries about the scheme, and to curb excessive prescribing or prescribing other than in accordance with any restrictions applying at the time. These departmental pharmacists are aided in their work by computer reports on prescribing patterns. The more serious breaches of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, including fraud , are made the subject of court action, while less serious breaches and cases where prescribers continue to disregard prescribing restrictions even after counselling, may be referred to a medical services committee of inquiry. In addition to the 'doctor visitation' program, departmental pharmacists also carry out routine calls on pharmacies to counsel pharmacists about the operation of the scheme and to ensure observance of the relevant requirements. As in the case of doctors, breaches under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by pharmacists may be made the subject of court action or be referred to a pharmaceutical services committee of inquiry. In view of the ever-increasing Government expenditure on the payment of various benefits, the Department is currently reviewing staffing structures with a view to improving inspection and associated activities for private hospitals, nursing homes and pharmaceutical benefit payments. Resources are needed in both the central and regional offices to evaluate, identify and counter areas of possible fraud relating to private hospitals, nursing homes and pharmaceutical benefits. In addition, there is the need to design, implement and maintain national training programs for departmental inspection and investigation staff to complement the program already being put in place with regard to medical benefits fraud. In concluding on the subject of medical benefits fraud, I wish to reiterate that the special surveillance and investigation program which I have outlined is not intended to be an attack on the majority of medical practitioners, who are honest and caring professionals. Rather, it constitutes a program to combat practices which are totally contrary to the medical profession's own high standards. It deserves the support of responsible members of the profession and of the community generally. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —by leave-I welcome the statement by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts presented earlier by my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) , both dealing with medical fraud and overservicing. Before I make some comments about the path we seem to be going down, I refer to a period when this matter was not dealt with as calmly as it has been dealt with today. In fact, during most of the Minister's speech not a single member of the Australian Labor Party was in the House behind him. That is quite different from my experience from the time when I was appointed as Minister for Health in May 1982. Honourable members may recall that at that time the Joint Committee of Public Accounts inquiry, chaired by my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who commented earlier in this debate, was in full flight. Despite the best efforts of the Chairman of the Committee at that time-as I said it was the honourable member for Bradfield-the doctors began to regard themselves as an endangered species. The Public Accounts Committee inquiry was used by the Labor Party, assisted by certain members of the media, to make profoundly nasty attacks on doctors. To give honourable members some idea of the flavour of what was about at that time, I quote from a speech of the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), just a few months before I was appointed as Minister for Health. He referred to doctors in these terms: . . . the health care system is rigged by doctors to satisfy their pecuniary aspirations. In another part of the same speech, he said: Greedy members of the medical profession are more interested in higher incomes than proper health care at a reasonable price. Mr Hunt —Who said that? Mr CARLTON —The then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Foreign Minister. Mr Hunt —He has a habit of upsetting people. Mr CARLTON —That is correct. At the time when the present Minister for Health was the Opposition spokesman on health, the present Foreign Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, also said: The AMA . . . behaves like a protected species. It's conservative, self- interested and ineffective-and very greedy into the bargain. I raise these unpleasant matters to give some of the flavour which was about in May 1982. It was like a fox hunt with the doctors as the foxes and the Labor Party members of the Public Accounts Committee as the hounds with the Minister for Health, as the then Opposition spokesman on health matters, leading the pack of hounds into the attack. The scene was very unpleasant. I found it necessary at that point to defend the good doctor. Of course, I believed that the community view of doctors was somewhat different from the view that was being put forward by the Labor Party at the time. My view about the public and its view on doctors was substantiated some months later in a public opinion poll published in the Bulletin which recorded the professions listed according to the esteem in which they are held by the general public. Doctors were at the very head of the list. Unfortunately, politicians and journalists were towards the bottom of the list. It was a useful commentary on the very serious misjudgment of the Labor Party and the present Minister about the situation then. In order to try to abate the force of this fury against doctors I asked the then Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield, whether the Committee could possibly produce an interim report. The Committee worked extremely well and produced, by 9 December of last year, an interim report which covered most matters which had to be dealt with, the matters which are now the subject of this follow-up report. That was quite an achievement. It was possible for me to take administrative action even before that report was received to begin to tighten up within the Department of Health some of the loose areas of administration and the surveillance of fraud and overservicing identified by the Public Accounts Committee. I notice that these changes have been carried on by the present Minister. His statement is a useful documentation for the House of how far that work has gone. I also welcome the structural changes in the Department overall. The nature of the changes mentioned by the Minister in his statement is quite far reaching. They include a review of the top structure in central and regional offices to strengthen the performance of the Department's administrative functions; the development of specified goals and objectives for the Department and its constituent divisions, branches and regional offices; and the appointment of consultants to review the Department's total training and staff development programs and to develop a long term staff development plan. There is also a move towards greater co-ordination between central and regional offices in relation to uniformity of decisions and procedures for the administration of programs. It is pretty dreadful for the Minister to have to say that all these things are now being implemented in the administration of a major department of state. It gives some indication of some of the difficulties that were faced by my two predecessors in trying to deal with this matter. Some fairly major deficiencies in public administration have been identified by the Minister in saying what is now being done. He is fortunate, I believe, in having the kind of support that he has and that these changes are going on under his administration. It draws to the attention of the House the very serious question-I do not want to go off on another point entirely-of upgrading the management of the Public Service. I will not go any further into that area. But, as the House will know, it is a matter in which the honourable member for Bradfield and I have a very deep interest. The Opposition is looking at it in a very broad and deep way. All those things are going on more or less as the Public Accounts Committee has suggested. I note the new found caution of the Minister in his remarks about the difficulties of dealing with overservicing. He went to great pains in his statement to point out the difference between fraud and overservicing. But he also went to great pains to point out how difficult it is to determine what overservicing actually is. This is where we raise very deep questions about the direction in which we are going in the whole matter. I had reservations when I was Minister about the nature of the calculations which led to the announcement by my predecessor-I think in good faith at the time-that a total of $100m a year was being lost in fraud and overservicing. That figure was based on certain statistical calculations which were, once again, identified by the Minister in his statement. Those statistical calculations are subject to very grave reservations. The Minister talked about the very complicated methodology for arriving at those estimates. We should understand that those estimates ought to be used with extreme caution. I was a little disturbed to see in the current report of the Public Accounts Committee that the Committee gives credence to an estimate by the Doctors Reform Society. The Society is not actually named in the report but obviously it is the professional medical society which is referred to. That Society believes that the figure is closer to $200m per annum. If we look at the way in which those figures are calculated-there is an air of unreality about those kinds of calculations-we can get some understanding of how hurtful it is for the average decent doctor to be told constantly in the Press, by Ministers, or by departments that somehow $120m a year is being taken by them in an unsatisfactory way through overservicing. It is all very well for the Minister to point out that only a small number of doctors is involved. That is certainly true. I merely say that in my judgment the constant repetition of figures like that causes a grave loss of morale amongst the medical profession. We rely on that profession to deliver good health care in Australia. The vast majority of doctors are people of great integrity and they are held in very high public esteem. I therefore believe that we are moving into an area of considerable difficulty if we proceed with the extraordinarily complicated calculations that are mentioned by the Minister. Let me raise a matter which is perhaps of greater significance than that, and that is the direction we are going overall. This year in the Budget the amount of money set aside to combat fraud and overservicing by doctors has been increased from $4m to $8m, which is an extraordinary increase in Budget outlays. The extent of that work which is going on is clear from the Minister's statement . It is accompanied, of course, by the introduction of Medicare from 1 February next year and the nationalisation of most of the health insurance industry. I am very concerned that just after we have gone through the extraordinary difficulties of a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into fraud and overservicing we are introducing a new scheme which opens new opportunities for the very difficulties that have been uncovered. I think it is self-evident that if one has difficulties in particular with bulk billing of patients where the patient has no concern about the size of the bill, which is quite different from the the situation where the patient pays a proportion of the bill and is concerned about the size of the bill, one should not extend that system unnecessarily to all other patients regardless of their means or situation. That is the intention of the Medicare program. I have never accepted that the extension of bulk billing will have no effect on overservicing. Mr Cadman —It must increase it. Mr CARLTON —It must increase it. The Lord's Prayer says 'Lead us not into temptation', and this is basically what the Government is doing with Medicare, in relation to the medical profession. Even a saint, in certain circumstances, would be tempted to increase the number of patient visits, the length of the visits or whatever where there is no patient interest in the actual bill. Even the new provision which requires, under pain of a very substantial penalty, doctors to give a copy of the bill to a bulk billed patient I do not think will have any substantial effect on the situation. Although the patient might be given the copy of the bill I suspect that the bulk of those copies will still be put in the waste paper bin in the doctor's waiting room as the patient leaves. I am very concerned about that. In the second reading debate on the Medicare legislation I used the analogy of the situation where a policeman comes down High Street in the middle of night and finds the door of Woolworths open and goods being taken by thieves. But instead of closng the door the policeman sets up a computer surveillance operation on the other side of the street in order to measure the goods going out and, subsequently, on the basis of computer profiles, attempts to track down the thieves. That is basically the approach of this Government in introducing Medicare: More general bulk billing and doubling the amount of computer surveillance. The Minister will get into more and more trouble on this matter because he is taking more and more responsibility away from patients and providers and putting more responsibility on to the computer surveillance people . That is just not the way to go. The system will become increasingly difficult. The more we do that the more computer surveillance we will have to have, the more difficulties we will have and so on. The Minister reminds me of the incubator bird. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you are familiar with the incubator bird which exists in the northern part of Australia. This bird, in order to hatch its eggs, has to keep them within a very narrow band of temperature. In order to do this it covers the eggs with a mound of earth. Of course, in the night time it is cool and the bird has to put more earth over the eggs to keep them within the right band of temperature. When the sun comes out the bird has to scratch the earth off the eggs so that the temperature will not be too hot for them during the day. Unfortunately, the poor incubator bird is getting right down one of those alleys or byways of Darwinian development. It is scratching earth back and forth, off and on the pile, over the course of each cycle of 24 hours. The poor, wretched bird is scratching for about 21 hours with a result that it has only about three hours in which to feed. One can see that, gradually, as that evolutionary process continues, the bird will have no time to feed and, of course, will become extinct. That is what is happening to the incubator bird, and that is what is happening to this Minister. Over the period of the extension of Medicare with all these additional mechanical things, with this reduction of responsibility away from the patients and back towards the computer surveillance systems, this Minister will disappear in the middle of all this paper work, software and computer systems. The patients will be totally forgotten. As a final remark on this matter I ask: Is it not extraordinary that the House never discusses the question of overservicing by chiropractors? One of the reasons for that is that when people go to chiropractors they actually pay across the counter for the service. Presumably they get value for the service or they would not go back. With the doctors, even under the old system, there was a 30c in the dollar subsidy for every single visit to a doctor, regardless of the means of the patient. So the Government was a third party to the transaction. That is where the whole thing starts. Of course, this Government is increasing the Government's and the taxpayers' contribution to 85 per cent of the fee. Therefore, it is pushing up the amount of intervention and surveillance by an extraordinary percentage. If that percentage becomes 100 per cent and the doctor is persuaded to bulk bill we will have not an incubator bird but a real cuckoo in the nest. I suggest that the only way of reducing these problems of fraud and overservicing in the longer term is to go towards a system where there is a reintroduction of more patient responsibility. If we must have complete government intervention in the area of the disadvantaged- pensioners and so on- that is fair enough. But why on earth introduce a reduction of patient responsibility for those patients who can look after themselves perfectly well? This Government and this Minister will regret this major step into Medicare and, with it, this major introduction of this 1984 computer surveillance system. ( Quorum formed) Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.49) —If the Representation Bill is passed it will be a reasonable question to ask of the Senate in the future: What sort of a House of Parliament is it? Is it a House representing the States? The answer would have to be no, it is not a House representing the States. One could then ask the question: 'Is it therefore a party House, a House where parties are represented and where they make decisions in accord with their view as a House and in accord with the Government?' One would have to answer 'No, it is not a party House', because it would be a House of either of two kinds. It could be a House which was hung, with neither of the major parties in the Parliament having a majority, and with decisions being made by a smaller party sitting between the two major parties; or it could simply be a House reflecting a single issue of politics, with members elected because of their one interest in the community of Australia and being able to be elected to the Senate because of a lower quota. I say that because of the peculiar workings of the House in relation to what is proposed by this Bill. The effects of this Bill will occur for the reasons which I stated, and they are the reasons why the Liberal Party opposes this measure and will vote against it. I believe that it is a test of the Government's sincerity about its desire now to increase the size of the Parliament to refer to the reasons why it suddenly found this to be a fashionable measure and one to be ardently supported. When the committee was set up by the Government to look into electoral matters in the community-the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform-there was not an intention by the Government to proceed with a measure to increase the size of the Parliament. No mention of this was made in the terms of reference of that Committee. Yet there was a factor that made the Government change its mind. What was that factor? It was evidence given to the Committee on behalf of the National Party of Australia which alerted the Government to the possibility that it could get the support of the National Party in this measure. The Australian Labor Party then, knowing that it had that support if it so proceeded, proceeded to look at the advantage to itself in the major metropolitan areas around Australia. Having done that study, it saw quite clearly that there was a major advantage for it electorally if it suddenly became an ardent supporter of increasing the number of members of parliament. That is why the Government became such a convert, such an active and ardent convert, to this proposal. It was simply because of the fortuitous gift that it got, of National Party support . I regret that our colleagues in the coalition are supporting this measure. I have grave reservations about the consequence of the passage of the Representation Bill. I know that the Labor Party, as I have said, could not believe its luck in this matter. Let me point out what our reservations are. I have already said that it will not be possible for the government of the day to achieve a majority in the Senate if this Bill is passed. I will demonstrate directly how that will come about. This country, in a state of crisis at some time in the future, will have a government which will not be able to claim support in the Senate. It will have a government that will be thrown on the mercy of individuals who, I have said, will not be members of parliament in a number of cases because of widespread support in the community, but simply because of support on a single issue. The Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), by interjection or in speaking to this measure, may say: 'So what? The Labor Party has had a majority in the Senate on very few occasions'. I remind him that it did not have a majority in the Senate in 1975, either, and it would have liked to have had a majority. If ever there were evidence of what could happen in the future, it was what happened in that year. I put it to the Government that it is foolish in the extreme to tempt the future scene in the Australian political arena by setting up conditions which will automatically mean that no government will have a majority in the Senate and be able to control it in the future. Of course, in the long run it is not the political parties of this country which should be considered as simply being inconvenienced by this move; it is the nation which will suffer. It is the nation, in the face of economic or physical crisis, which will not be able to respond as it ought to respond, by having a clearcut decision in the Senate. I mentioned the mechanics of what was proposed in relation to the Senate. I will mention some figures to support this view. The fact is that since the introduction of proportional representation in the Senate in the late 1940s, there has been only one occasion in 33 or 34 years when, under this Bill, a government would have had a majority in the Senate. This fact must be faced by the Government and the House. In 1975, in Queensland, the incoming Government, the two coalition parties, received 57.3 per cent of the Senate vote. The quota for the enlarged parliament will be 14.28 per cent. It will simply mean that a party with just under 43 per cent of the total vote will get half the number of Senate vacancies for that State. It is most likely that a polarisation will take place in Australian politics under the details that have just been passed in the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That will mean that there will be a great chance that the major parties, the coalition and the Labor Party, will get half the number of Senate vacancies each. There is a very great chance of that happening over a number of elections. If it does not happen, minor parties will hold the balance. It is certain that unless there is a landslide such as occurred in 1975, which seldom occurs, no government will have a majority in the Senate. I would like the Minister to address this matter when he speaks in reply , because that is what the details and facts of previous elections tell us. The Government is setting up a position where no party can expect to have a majority in the Senate. As I have said, that is a most serious matter for Australia. Some people have considered this matter in depth in the past. Members of the House would remember that in 1967 there was a referendum on the issue of breaking the nexus, because the government of the day did not want to proceed with increasing the numbers in the Senate, but it did want to proceed with increasing the numbers in the House of Representatives. It made that decision in a fairly considered way. On one important issue it had the support of the Opposition which was then led by Mr Whitlam. It is interesting to read in Hansard the speeches made in 1967 when this issue was debated. For the edification of the Minister, I will read an excerpt from the speech by the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt. Mr Leo McLeay —He is pretty edified already. Mr STEELE HALL —There is a quote which suits the honourable member who interjected, because his Party was also represented in this debate, and I will read it to him directly. Mr Harold Holt said: Unless the nexus is removed, a significant increase in the size of the House of Representatives cannot be made unless the number of senators is also increased proportionately. That is something we all know, about which much debate has ensued over the years . He continued: To enable the Senate to continue to opeate on a basis similar to that on which it is operating at the present-that is, with an uneven number of senators standing for election on every occasion in each State-the minimum increase is twenty-four. This would mean increasing the size of the House of Representatives by some forty-eight members. No-one in this Parliament-nor any member of the public would want this result. Nor do we as a government. . . . . The purpose of the proposal is to seek from the electors approval to alter the Constitution so that, as the growth of the Commonwealth's population demands, this Parliament can legislate for a modest increase in the size of the popular house . . . The possibility of a deadlocked Senate could be increased, and there are other factors which, in the view of the Government, make this a less desirable course . . . This was one of the prime reasons why the then Prime Minister, Mr Holt, would not agree to an increase which would allow the election of even numbers of senators. At the time, Mr Whitlam was the Leader of the Opposition. His contribution to the debate included the following: To minimise the chances of even division between Government and Opposition parties and thus a stalemate on all legislation in the Senate, an extraordinarily complicated system is proposed . . . Nobody really believes that it is necessary to have an increase in the Senate in order to make that chamber more effective. He too illustrated his concern for the effects of an election of even numbers in the Senate, and a party winning 43 per cent of the vote in any particular State and getting half the number of senators. It is totally irrational to think that, as a matter of principle, this Government would support a proposal which would allow 43 per cent of electors to give a party 50 per cent of senators. It is totally wrong in principle, and not to be supported. One could ask the direct question-one which will influence the public-as to what this will cost. One can get reasonably reliable estimates of this. I suppose that, given the multi-billions of dollars that go through this House, honourable members are not very impressed with the figure of $5m to $6m as the direct cost of increasing the numbers of members of both Houses by the numbers proposed in this Bill. It is, however, a factor that ought to be mentioned. The figure is not less than $5m in direct costs, for salaries and support staff, outside of what is provided in this House as accommodation. I noted today a Government member asking-a member from the Left of the Party and the right of the Speaker-in this chamber when the Government will reduce taxation. I am sure that however minimal the Government might view the additional expenditure of $5m plus, it does not fit in with the Labor Party's back bench question today as to when we can expect a reduction in taxation. Of course, that is not the real question at all. We know that a growth in the size of Parliament is only the cover of the book. It is an incentive for Parliament to expand its activities. It gives a lead to the community for an increase in the bureaucracy. It is the stamp of approval on an increase in the bureaucracy. Honourable members know very well that when the Federal Government sneezes, Canberra grows. It is as simple as that. It will reflect on and rub off on the community. The bureaucracy will inevitably grow if this Bill is passed. It will grow at a time when the community is very aware of the need for economy in industry, in commerce and in many other directions. We have only to look at the economic conditions in the community today. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: Is this a time to increase the number of members of parliament? On 27 August General Motors-Holden's Ltd announced the sacking of 633 employees? On 27 August Leyland Motor Corporation of Aust. Ltd announced that it would close its Enfield plant in Sydney and put off 350 automotive industry employees. On 1 October Malleys Ltd sent 170 people to the dole queues. On 2 November a survey of the 229 retrenched people following the closure of Email Ltd's Sydney factory a year ago showed that only 26 per cent have found suitable full time or part time work. On 2 September blame was laid for the continuing pressures on coal exporters and the retrenchment of 270 people from the mines in New South Wales. It was announced in August that in the last 18 months Bradmill Industries Ltd had retrenched a total of 2,000 people, leaving a work force of 5,000 around Australia. Do I need to go on quoting from that miserable set of statistics? Is this the time, therefore, to ask for an increase in the number of members of parliament, to say to the community: 'You have to retrench. These are the economic realities of this community. To survive you have to get your costs down. You have to get people off the payroll'? I visited Tasmania a fortnight ago and interviewed representatives of three industries fighting for survival. Their fight is based on capital investment. Less investment means fewer people employed. If employers do not retrench people they will go broke. It is easy to pass a Bill through this House and the other place to expand the activities of Parliament by 25 per cent-or whatever the figure is. That is a ridiculous proposition, and absolutely absurd at a time when everyone else is tightening his belt. Let us ask the people what they think about this. Let us ask the public of Australia. The people gave their view, of course, way back in 1967 when, in rejecting a proposal to break the nexus between the Houses, they gave a clear cut indication that there ought not to be more members of parliament. Two months ago 76 per cent of people disagreed with increasing the number of members of parliament and 13 per cent agreed. Seventy-three per cent of ALP supporters disagreed and 80 per cent of Liberal-National Party supporters disagreed. Mr Hodgman —Where is the consensus? Mr STEELE HALL —As my colleague interjects, where is the consensus on this issue ? I have read out figures illustrating the deplorable economic circumstances and described the public's view of what should occur. A claim is also made by honourable members that they are overworked. A further claim, of course, is that they do not see their electorates as much as they used to. That is absurd. It is nonsense. Any study of past amentities enjoyed by members of parliament and any knowledge of how they traipse around their electorates today would obviously prove the point that they now see and contact their electors more than they have ever done before. That is an undeniable fact. It is interesting to read of the conditions they once enjoyed. In 1952 a study was made of the amenities of members of parliament by the Committee of Inquiry into the Salaries and Allowances of Members of the National Parliament. Eight pounds was allocated for the postage costs of honourable members. I quote from the report: The present allowance for stamps is #8 a month. It is in excess of members' needs, in some instances, very much in excess. We recommend that it by reduced by 50 per cent to #4 a month and this notwithstanding recent increases in the cost of postage. That recommendation was made in 1952, but that was the standard then. Mr Leo McLeay —Was that one of Harold Holt's speeches? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — Order! The honourable member for Grayndler, I believe, is on the list of speakers for this debate. He will have his opportunity to speak at a later time. He will cease interjecting. Mr Leo McLeay —I was wondering what the source was. Mr STEELE HALL —I gave the honourable member the source. It was a report by the Committee of Inquiry into the Salaries and Allowances of Members of the National Parliament. If the honourable member is not satisifed with that he can borrow my copy afterwards, which will save him looking in the Library. That was the standard then. If we are to compare the contact that members of parliament had with their electorates then with the situation obtaining now, there is only one conclusion one can make, and that is that members of parliament have much more contact with their electors now than they had then. They had one secretary then. The Committee recommended that that secretary be shared and that the services of secretaries be reduced. That was the standard then. It is simply unreal to say that honourable members do not contact their electorates as they used to. With modern amenities, modern travel, unlimited telephone facilities, unlimited air services and enormous postage allowances they do, in fact, contact their electors very widely indeed. That is not an issue; it is a myth from the past. I know that members of the Electoral Reform Committee and others have made something of the comparisons internationally. They have looked at the scene in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and elsewhere. Only one real comparison can be made and that is with the United States where there is a comparable federation in that sense. If the rules of this Government were applied in the United States, we would have a situation in which there would be 2,500 members of Congress. How absurd can this Government be? It is a nonsense to make international comparisons in that fashion. The only path that the Government should take if it wants to proceed down this line is the path of putting the nexus to the community. It will get an answer from members of the community as to whether they want an increase in the number of members of parliament. The Special Minister of State, who is seated at the table, can be contemptuous as the Minister in control of this Representation Bill. He can be contemptuous of the 76 per cent of the public who do not want this measure. I do not believe that this Bill is a democratic response to community desires. This is not a marginal decision and it is flouting community opinion. This decision has been taken simply for selfish reasons of political gain. Given the fortuitous support of the National Party the Labor Government perceives an electoral advantage especially in the city of Sydney. That is why it is proceeding with this legislation. In the last few minutes available to me I want to read my dissenting report from the Committee's report. I wish to read it because I take it that members of the community do not very often read these reports. I said in that report about the size of parliament: There are 189 Members in the Federal Parliament and 562 Members in the six State Parliaments. Collectively therefore 751 Members of Parliament serve the public and compete for political approval. They are joined by 19 Members of the Northern Territory Assembly and the Australian Capital Territory Assembly of 18. Quite obviously the different Parliaments operate with their own Constitutions and State Administrations are confined to their own borders. However, they are all part of a federal system and Commonwealth electors are also State electors. The public view is that there are politicians all over the place and one has only to attend public functions to find this to be often the situation. Taking all 788 politicians including members of the two Assemblies into the calculation, Australia has a Member to each 12,000 electors. The public would rightly be offended if the size of Federal Parliament was increased at a time when many businesses are reducing the number of their employees because of recession. An increase in Members would inevitably swell the bureaucracy and put a stamp of approval on its growth when much of Australia is asking for smaller government. My view does not hold that there should never be an increase. Population growth will make this desirable probably at the end of the century. In the meantime, Members of Federal Parliament and the public would be well served by an increase in electorate office staff. The Remuneration Tribunal, in its 1977 report, strongly advocated that an additional staff member be allocated to members of parliament. I believe that the previous Government was deficient in not moving in that area. I believe that this Government should move in that area. Mr Griffiths —But you don't want an increase in the size of the bureaucracy. You can't have it both ways. Mr STEELE HALL —The honourable member puts forward a silly argument. He knows what I am arguing. I am arguing that the increase of a staff member for each member of parliament will save the expenditure of untold millions that would occur if the numbers of members of parliament were enlarged in both Houses. My dissenting report continues: In the meantime, Members of Federal Parliament and the public would be well served by an increase in electorate staff. The work load of electorate offices is continually increasing as media influence and Member involvement in it grows. Additional assistance in this way for Members to fulfill their representational role will allow them more time for their legislative and parliamentary duties. In particular, more country electorates should receive more special assistance related to multiple office needs and travel allowances. As I said earlier, I am astonished that the Government would so ignore the words of one of its own people from a previous parliament, Mr Whitlam, who clearly said in a debate on the matter that, in his view, there was a danger of a deadlock in the Senate if an even number of members was allowed to be elected. I am amazed also that the Government should ignore advice given during that same debate by the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, who dwelt on the same question. Now, at rather short notice and for quite fortuitous reasons of political advantage the Government is moving in this direction. To ignore the lessons of history and the good advice given by people who have dealt with this matter at lenght I believe is to put Australia in very great danger of having, as I have said, as a possible result a Senate with no government majority-a known factor. I understand that the Government must have made an assessment and it must have decided that it was not necessary for the good government of Australia even to allow the election of a majority in the Senate. I happen to believe that it is a good thing basically for a government to have a majority in the Senate. Whilst one contends, of course, for political superiority in every leg of politics, in theory and in practice one has to allow the government of the day the ability to govern. My record on that in matters of money Bills in the Senate is quite clear. But, as I have said, this Government is taking direct measures which will not only militate against it but also prevent it from happening. I believe that is an utterly negative approach to the need that Australia will have in the future for positive government. Having said that, I get back to the point that, if no government is able to get a majority, quite obviously the Senate will be governed by a conglomerate of one major party receiving or buying the support of a smaller group or the mainstream of Australian politics will be directed by senators elected on single issues by the Australian community whereby a reduced quota can put them in Parliament on those issues. If that is to be the case this Government is to be utterly condemned for its cynical approach to this matter. If this Bill is passed, the future must be considered in the light of further changes that will have to be made at some time to ensure that the Senate again becomes representative, or to allow the possibility of it becoming representative of public opinion, so that a government might be given a majority as has occurred in the past and should occur in the future. I again say that I regret that this Bill has been introduced. I regret that the Liberal Party will be opposing this legislation in isolation and that the National Party will support it. However, it is a fact of life. I can only hope that, when the debate takes place in the Senate, the issues that we have raised in this chamber become paramount in those discussions and that the Bill may yet fail. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(6.19) —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) who led for the Liberal Party in the debate on this legislation-- Mr Griffiths —With his chin. Dr KLUGMAN —Very much so. He com- plained that there was no consensus on this issue. I cannot imagine any issue on which there has been more consensus. As he has said, the Australian Labor Party was not particularly interested in this question of an enlargement of parliament. He said that the matter came up because the National Party of Australia made a submission. I remind honourable members of what happened on 4 May 1983. As reported at page 204 of Hansard, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who was then the Leader of the House, moved that a joint select committee be set up. Page 206 of Hansard reports: Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.36) —by leave-I move: (1) Paragraph (1), omit sub-paragraph (g), substitute the following sub- paragraph: '(g) electoral distribution and numbers of Members of Parliament . . . He moved that motion on behalf of the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Boothby said: The first amendment seeks to add to paragraph (1) (g) of the motion the words ' and numbers of Members of Parliament'. I have included this as an additional point of study and recommendation for the Minister's consideration because the number of members of parliament is a very important aspect. This matter was not raised by the National Party; it was not raised by the Labor Party. It was raised by the honourable member for Boothby who, I thought, was the spokesman for the Liberal Party on this issue. Mr Leo McLeay —When was that? Dr KLUGMAN —It was on 4 May this year when the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform was set up. Mr Leo McLeay —You mean it was his idea? Dr KLUGMAN —The honourable member said: It is a subject of great concern to some people. If this is included in the terms agreed to by the Minister it would allow members of the public to give their views as to whether there should be more members of parliament, whether the status quo should be retained . . . Mr Leo McLeay —Is it all his fault? Dr KLUGMAN —It is the honourable member for Boothby. One could not have more consensus. The Liberal Party moved a motion for the consideration of the matter; the National Party made the appropriate submission; and the Labor Party was persuaded on the issue. Let me make one point in relation to an argument that is advanced by members of the Liberal Party. I tried to act as a fairly objective Chairman of the Committee. Some members of the Liberal Party are not being terribly numerate, with all due respect to them. They see this proposal as a deep plot, so far as the Labor Party and the National Party are concerned. Former Senator Puplick, whom I consider a rational person, in conjunction with the Director of the Institute of Public Affairs, wrote a pamphlet for the Institute on the subject of more federal parliamentarians. He put up the proposition that this year, under the proposed enlargement of Parliament, 14 of the extra 23 parliamentarians would have been from the Labor Party and nine would have been from the Liberal-National Party. I do not dispute that statement, I have not checked the figures. But let us assume hat those figures based on material which was prepared by Malcolm Mackerras are accurate. I refer to what happened this year. In the elections we got 75 seats and the Liberal-National Party got 50 seats. That is a ratio of 60 : 40 or 3 : 2. For practical purposes, out of 23 extra seats one would expect a result of 14 Labor and 9 Liberal-National Party. Do Liberal members expect that at the next elections we will have the same result as to the numbers of people voting for the different parties as happened in 1983? I would think there is no method by which they could win under those circumstances. We should be looking at figures for, say, 1980, 1974 and 1969 when elections in Australia produced close results . To calculate what the result of a particular reform would be one must try to determine what would happen if the voting trends were as they were in 1969, 1974 and 1980. Those elections were won twice by the coalition parties and once by the Labor Party with very, very narrow margins. One would probably find that out of the 23 seats-obviously we do not know how they would be redistributed-they would break 12 to 11 to one party or the other. The proposal does not represent bias towards one party. I think it is impossible to predict what the result will be of a particular method of redistribution. I am sure that in 1948 when Arthur Calwell introduced measures to enlarge the size of the Parliament and to change the method of election to the Senate for the 1949 election, he thought that this move would have a terrific result for the Labor Party, otherwise he would not have been able to get the proposals through the Labor Party Caucus. We all know what the result was in 1949. I make the point that this legislation does not attempt to achieve a means of installing a permanent Labor government. I do not think there is any method to do that except by persuading people to keep on voting for us and that is a different issue altogether. For those who will be following this debate by reading Hansard, I seek leave for table 6 on page 137 of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform's report to be incorporated in Hansard. The table shows the average number of enrolled voters in each electoral division on a State basis in 1949, 1983 and with the proposed increase. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AVERAGE ENROLLED VOTERS PER ELECTORAL DIVISION, 1949, 1983 AND WITH PROPOSED INCREASE Average Average Average enrolment enrolment enrolment per division per division Per cent with more Per cent 1949 March 1983 difference members difference State (A) (B) B/A (C) C/A per cent per cent NSW 40,782 75,536 (43) * 85.2 63,687 (51) * 56.2 Vic. 41,510 75,663 (33) 82.3 64,023 (39) 54.2 Qld 38,724 81,826 (19) 111.3 61,369 (24) 58.5 SA 43,432 80,085 (11) 84.4 67,764 (13) 56.0 WA 39,471 72,507 (11) 83.7 61,352 (13) 55.4 Tas. 32,308 56,493 (5) 74.9 56,493 (5) 74.9 ACT 11,841 68,662 (2) . . 68,662 (2) . . NT 6,586 57,471 (1) . . 57,471 (1) . . Total average 39,948 74,989(125) 87.7 63,335(148) 58.5 * Figures in brackets in Column B refer to number of Members at March 1983. * Figures in Column C, refer to number of Members if proposal to increase size of Parliament were accepted. Dr KLUGMAN —I thank the House. The important point to realise is that the average enrolment per division in 1949 was 39,948. In March 1983, it was just under 75,000, an increase of 87.7 per cent. If the Representation Bill is passed and the increase in the number of members in the House of Representatives is granted, there will still be as of March 1983 about 63,000 enrolments in each electoral division. That represents an increase of some 58.5 per cent on the 1949 figures. It is important to realise that these enrolments are growing at a terrific pace. Take the average enrolment figures per electorate for New South Wales. I have not done the figures for the other States. In March 1983, when we prepared the report, it was 63,687; it is now 65,000. The figure has already increased by nearly 1,500 in just six months or so. In addition to that, one of the recommendations which everybody has accepted and which is now in the Bill is the compulsory enrolment of Aborigines. From now on it will be compulsory for Aboriginal people to enrol. I cannot recall the figures of the extra numbers involved but obviously in many electorates there will be a significant number. That factor in itself will again increase the average enrolment in each electorate. In the couple of minutes that I have left before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I will quickly refer to some of the arguments which have been made by other honourable members before I get on to my main argument in favour of increasing the number of members in the House of Representatives. Among the arguments for such an increase in the number of enrolments, is the claim that a larger parliament would strengthen the operation of the parliamentary system, a great number of extra responsibilities have been put on parliamentarians and on Parliament itself, access of electors to political representatives is demanded more now than it has been in the past and, most importantly, the growing involvement by the Federal Parliament in additional issues since 1949. I think everybody would agree that the list is impressive. The list includes: Aboriginal affairs, more extensive social welfare and health policies, uniform legislation such as company law, education, environment and conservation, family law, status of women, law reform and legal aid, ethnic affairs, consumer affairs, child care , minerals and energy policy, tourism and small business, sport and recreation, cultural affairs and the national heritage, federal affairs and local government , science and technology, electronic communications such as television and satellites, an expanded industrial relations role for the Federal Parliament, more complex economic issues and greater involvement in overseas aid. I think that anybody who reflects on these extra responsibilities which have been added to the responsibilities of the Federal Parliament and of Federal parliamentarians since 1949, in addition to the, I think, 87 per cent increase in the number of electors we each represent, must surely see that either the people who were in Parliament in 1949 were tremendously under-employed or obviously more members are now needed. Before we break for dinner, I will deal with one extra point which the honourable member for Boothby made. It was about the extra bureaucracy and the extra cost involved in having an additional 23 members and 12 senators. The honourable member suggested an extra staff member for each member of Parliament. That would give us an extra 189 staff members; at present there are 189 parliamentarians. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Dr KLUGMAN —Before the suspension of the sitting, honourable members will recall , I pointed out that this was a real consensus piece of legislation dealing with the increase in the size of Parliament. I pointed out that when the Committee was set up the honourable member for Boothby, who led for the Liberal Party of Australia, moved a motion to increase the number of members in Parliament. The National Party of Australia made the recommendation for the increase and presented the arguments. For practical purposes, members on the Committee adopted the recommendation from the National Party for very good reasons. I pointed out that the Federal Parliament-quite apart from the fact that the last increase in the number of members was in 1949-has now got a very large number of additional issues which the people in 1948-49 never thought about as being Federal issues. Two members of the Committee dissented. As I pointed out earlier, the honourable member for Boothby dissented-to some extent it contradicts his present position-on the basis that it would be better to give an extra staff member to every one of the 189 parliamentarians at present. He considered that the extra staff member would be better than adding the extra parliamentarian. Senator Sir John Carrick, who was the other Liberal Party member on the Committee, reacted with the usual sort of argument used in the United States when somebody is asked whether a particular person claims to be a progressive republican. He is then asked the difference between a progressive republican and a conservative republican and says that a conservative republican is against change whilst a progressive republican is in favour of change but not now. That was exactly the attitude taken by Senator Sir John Carrick on this issue. He supported the increase but he felt that this was not an opportune time to go ahead with the increase and stated his reasons, which are basically economic, and contradicted his colleague who is leading for the Liberal Party in this House. One of the arguments presented by the honourable member for Boothby-I think it is an argument that is accepted by others-is that the increase would interfere with the running of Parliament because six people will be elected from each State for the Senate at each Senate election and, therefore, the Senate will be deadlocked all the time. I have some difficulty in accepting that proposition because in fact it is likely that either the Australian Democrats or some other minority party will win the sixth seat in most cases and the remaining five seats in each state will be divided on the basis of which major party, in effect , wins the election in that particular State. But even if the proposition were true that the Senate were divided or that the Government will always have to depend on minority parties, I am not completely convinced that that is a bad thing. I know that it is, to some extent, going against the sorts of propositions we usually have to put in this House. My own view-I have expressed it before-is reflected in one of the editorials of the Sydney Morning Herald. The article states: . . . the committee's arguments in favour of its recommendation are plausible and deserve more than the simplistic response that Australia already has too many politicians. There are two main arguments in favour of expanding the size of the House of Representatives. The article pointed out that the expansion of the Senate is as a result of the nexus provision in the Constitution. It stated that one argument is because of the growth in population, et cetera. I have dealt with that matter. The article continued: The second argument is one for more legislators- the word 'legislators' is reflected in dark black- to increase the effectiveness of the Parliament as a countervailing force to the executive government, which has grown substantially since 1949. This is a worthy objective but there is nothing to suggest that this would necessarily follow from a larger House of Representatives. The failure of the House, unlike the Senate, to develop an effective Committee system, or similar procedures to more effectively scrutinise legislation, has been one of its own making. To some extent that is true. I think it is changing. We have accepted the proposition that it would be a good idea to have more committees, either joint committees between the two Houses or committees of this House, dealing with issues rather than leaving it to the Senate committees. I certainly hope that the House will continue to insist on that proposition. I previously stated my own views that I do not think that the main aim of parliamentarians should be to be legislators. My own view would be that the increase in the number of parliamentarians would in fact reduce the proportion of the Executive or the so- called legislators in the party room. This would force the Executive to persuade a larger number of potential critics and maybe sometimes fail to do so. We have a situation at present where a large proportion of the Government party meetings are in fact members of the Ministry and those who have some other position which , in some way, ties them to a large extent to the Executive position in the broadest sense. In the administration of the Fraser Government it is true to say that once matters came to the party room it was extremely difficult to raise issues to change a government decision. I have never been particularly impressed by claims of consecutive governments of varying political complexion that the number of laws passed is in any way related to the ultimate benefit for the Australian population. The Whitlam Government was terribly keen and proud to say that it passed more laws than any previous Government in its first 12 months or so. The Fraser Government was elected on the basis that it would reduce the amount of legislation. At the end of the first year of its term in office the then Prime Minister Fraser was terribly proud that he had passed more pieces of legislation in the first 12 months than Whitlam had in his first 12 months. The relationship between benefits to the Australian population and the number of pieces of legislation passed is not proportionate. I would in fact argue that it is often in inverse proportion. In any case we need a significant number of members who are prepared to spend their time looking at proposed legislation and exposing it to more effective criticism both in parliamentary and party committees and in the party room and, in cases where it is appropriate, to changing the legislation and influencing their parties to change the legislation before it is introduced into Parliament. Simplistic parliamentarians are beloved of the media. Others are aware that 'solutions' often lead to more 'problems'. If a politician says that he is not 100 per cent sure and it is unlikely that any decision is a black and white decision but usually they are different shades of grey, the media criticises him. Often the net result is that-with all due respect to the people involved-the people who become leaders have at least to pretend to be rather simplistic and rather simple minded and to be prepared to claim they know the solutions to all the problems. My own view is that there are no solutions to many of the problems. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.10) —I hope that my contribution to this debate tonight will be objective, rational, unemotional and certainly without any party political bias. I believe that it is proper and necessary for there to be some modest increase in the size of the Parliament for the proper working of our parliamentary system. Any suggestion that the National Party of Australia supports this move for a party political advantage should be rejected. If I felt that the Australian Labor Party, or any party for that matter, were to get a political advantage out of increasing the size of the Senate and the House of Representatives I for one certainly would not support the move. The only advantage that I can see is that on average electorates will be made slightly smaller than they are now and that gigantic electorates will be made marginally smaller. To that extent my Party will get an advantage. The National Party does not hold all the gigantic electorates; they are shared by all political parties in this Parliament. That is the only party political advantage that one can claim about my support for the increase in the size of Parliament. I hope that during this debate I can demonstrate my sincerity for stating that the Party believes that it is necessary to make this proposed increase. Seventeen years ago in 1966, all the major parties agreed that there was a need to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The only exception was the Australian Democratic Labor Party which, of course, did not have representation in the House of Representatives, only in the Senate. In this House there was a bipartisan approach. The Liberal Party, the Australian Country Party, as it was at the time, and the Labor Party all agreed that there was a need to increase the size of Parliament. At that time there had not been any increase in the past 17 years. The size of electorates had increased rapidly. We had the post-war immigration program and the rapid increase in the population. Everybody could see a need for an increase in size. That was in 1966. In 1983 we can demonstrate that case more clearly and strongly. I happened to be the Minister for the Interior at the time. It was my job then to organise a referendum to try to break the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Under the Constitution the House of Representatives can be only twice the size of the Senate; so we cannot increase the size of this chamber unless we also increase the size of the Senate. In 1966 we felt that the only increase in the Senate could be from 10 to 14 senators for each State, but of course that would have meant 24 more senators and 48 more members of the House of Representatives, an increase of 72. That was unacceptable and nobody subscribed to that point of view. By breaking the nexus we would have been able to leave the Senate at the same size, 10 from each State, and increase the size of the House of Representatives to a figure which would be determined on the basis of the number of people in each electorate. The reason we decided the numbers had to be increased from 10 to 14 was that if we had a half Senate election we would have needed an odd number, so that whoever won the majority of votes at the time of the Senate and House of Representatives election would command the majority of Senate positions and therefore have a better chance of controlling both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If we increased the numbers only from 10 to 12 it would have meant that six senators from each State must stand for re-election. Therefore the likelihood of a deadlock, with the Labor Party winning three seats and the non-Labor parties winning three seats, was very likely. That idea was rejected; so we tried to break the nexus. We had the referendum. In fact, four questions were put, but only one dealt with the nexus. Three questions were passed, but the question relating to breaking the nexus was rejected in a way that no other referendum question in this country has been rejected. The vote was 3.4 million against and 2.3 million for. The only State which carried the question was New South Wales. The catchcry , led by the Democratic Labor Party and by Senator Reg Wright and Senator Ian Wood from Queensland in the end-they did not start off with the catchcry-was that there were too many politicians, and that the proposed increase was costly. Of course, as we all know, in Australian folklore politicians become-- Mr Hunt —Fair game. Mr ANTHONY —Fair game for anybody. They are lampooned, belted and bashed. The electorate got its message through about how much it loved politicians. That did not stop one from believing in what was right and proper. Certainly, I believed it was right and proper. My own electorate of Richmond was the only rural electorate in Australia to carry an affirmative vote, because I went out and tried to explain. I believed that it was necessary for the proper workings of this Parliament that there be some increase. It did not work that way. Those people who now say that we ought to have another go at breaking the nexus, whilst I would be quite prepared to accept the challenge, should realise that it is a waste of time. I think the same emotional reaction would occur again and we would lose. We would be in the same position we are in at the moment; we will either never increase the size of this House of Parliament or we must accept that we have to increase the size of both the Senate and the House of Representatives at the one time. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform was set up by this Parliament in the May session to look into the electoral system. It is probably one of the most comprehensive reviews that have ever been carried out. When the Government announced the terms of reference I suggested in this House that included in the terms of reference ought to be the matter of the number of members of Parliament . I felt that that was probably one of the most important matters the Committee could look at. The Government was reluctant to include that matter in the Committee's terms of reference. I believed that it was appropriate because we had tried several years earlier, 16 years earlier, to get an increase. Therefore , with the population and electorates having increased and with the work of members of parliament having increased dramatically, surely that was the time to look at the matter. It was also appropriate because we were to have a redistribution. The imbalance in the size of the electorates was obvious and there had to be a general redistribution throughout Australia. It seemed appropriate that unless we considered the matter then maybe two or three terms of Parliament would go by before we considered it again when the next redistribution came up. It seems appropriate that as we are to move into the new Parliament House in 1988 now is the time to consider any increase in the number of members of Parliament. The Government set up its joint review Committee and called for submissions by all interested parties. The National Party, through its State organisations, prepared detailed submissions, covering the whole gamut of the terms of reference, which were presented to that Committee for consideration. We included in the New South Wales submission reasons why the Parliament ought to be increased. They were put forward for serious consideration and the Committee, after looking at the question closely, and with the support of the National Party representative on the Committee, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt ), recommended in favour. The two Liberal Party representatives, Senator Sir John Carrick and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), have put in minority reports rejecting the increase. But both Senator Sir John Carrick and the honourable member for Boothby acknowledged that there would be a need at some point to increase the size of Parliament. I quote from the minority report of Senator Sir John Carrick: In my view, while the logic of a larger parliament is strong, the overriding restraints of the current economic period must prevail. I therefore believe that the question should be deferred and its various aspects (including the nexus) put under further study. It we accepted that, we would not be looking at the matter for probably another ten years. But there is an acknowledgement of an argument in favour of an increase. I do not believe that in the argument one should rely heavily on the question of economic circumstances. Who knows what the economic circumstances will be in just two years from now? This increase will most likely not apply until two to three years from now. The honourable member for Boothby in his minority report also recognised these factors. He said: The public would rightly be offended if the size of the Federal Parliament was increased at a time when many businesses were reducing the number of their employees because of the recession. He went on: My view does not hold that there should never be an increase. Population growth will make this desirable probably at the end of the century. So the correct time to increase the numbers becomes a matter of argument or debate. I believe that the correct time is now. It is 34 years since there has been an increase, and that is a very substantial argument. But the question now is whether we should increase to twelve, the number of senators representing a State. I said before that there was a reluctance to increase the number to twelve because it would cause a 3-3 split in a State. But increasing the number to twelve will not necessarily mean that the Government of the day will or will not get control of the Senate. I must admit that it will probably make it a little harder for the Government, but since I came to this Parliament in 1958 there have been 11 elections and the Government of the day has had control of the Senate in only four of those elections-those of 1958, 1975, 1977 and 1980. In 1980 the then Government had control of the Senate for only a short period until the period of the retiring senators expired and the new senators came in, so it lost control of the Senate in 1981. The fact of the matter is that most times these days the Government has a minority in the Senate or there is a hung Senate. With the advent, firstly, of the Democratic Labor Party and, today, the Australian Democrats and the Independents it seems that in some States at least one of those elected to the Senate will be an Australian Democrat or an Independent. The split between the two major parties, the parties contesting government, will be between five senators. The winner of the day will get three senators and the other party will get two. but if the argument is that somehow or other an increase will distort the pattern-I have heard the argument that the Australian Labor Party is likely to benefit because of the block vote in the Senate and it is always likely to get three of the six seats more quickly than anybody else-the statistics I have had worked out by the Parliamentary Library do not show this to be conclusive. We can see that the pattern varies from State to State and from election to election and it is very hard for any political party to get up to the magic figure of 42.84 per cent, which a party requires for the election of three senators in one State. I have the figures for the elections of 1977-I did not include those for 1975 because I feel they were distorted-1980 and 1983 and I would like to have those incorporated in Hansard. I have also had the Parliamentary Library do a calculation on the outcome of the three elections based on having six senators or 12 senators just to show that there is not a substantial variation in the overall percentage figures at any time. I seek leave to have the tables incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- SENATE ELECTION RESULTS: BY PERCENTAGE AND SEATS WON FOR MAJOR PARTY GROUPINGS 1977 LIB/NP ALP DEM. Other Seats % Seats % Seats % Seats % New South Wales 2 43.4 2 40.1 1 8.3 . . 8.2 Victoria 2 41.9 2 34.2 1 16.2 . . 7.7 Queensland 3 51.3 2 34.6 . . 8.9 . . 5.1 South Australia 3 49.0 2 36.8 . . 11.2 . . 3.0 Western Australia 3 52.5 2 32.8 . . 12.5 . . 2.2 Tasmania 3 49.8 2 37.7 . . 5.9 . . 6.7 Northern Territory 1 46.0 1 40.4 . . 8.2 . . 5.4 Australian Capital Territory 1 38.4 1 43.2 . . 12.8 . . 3.6 Australia 18 45.6 14 36.8 2 11.1 . . 6.6 1980 New South Wales 2 41.9 3 44.7 . . 6.9 . . 6.4 Victoria 2 40.8 2 43.0 1 11.3 . . 4.9 Queensland 2 49.8 2 38.5 1 10.0 . . 1.8 South Australia 2 44.3 2 40.8 1 13.1 . . 1.7 Western Australia 3 49.1 2 38.8 . . 9.3 . . 2.8 Tasmania 2 39.4 2 35.6 . . 3.2 1 21.8 Northern Territory 1 45.5 1 38.9 . . 9.8 . . 5.8 Australian Capital Territory 1 37.1 1 50.7 . . 8.6 . . 3.6 Australia 15 43.5 15 42.3 3 9. 3 1 5.0 1983 New South Wales 4 38.1 5 47.4 1 8.6 . . 5.2 Victoria 4 38.2 5 46.5 1 12.0 . . 3.3 Queensland 5 44.1 4 39.6 1 7.9 . . 8.3 South Australia 4 42.2 5 44.6 1 12. 1 . . 1.2 Western Australia 4 42.1 5 49.3 1 6.8 . . 1.8 Tasmania 5 42.6 4 32.8 . . 6.8 1 17.8 Northern Territory 1 48.1 1 46.0 . . 5.3 . . 0.6 Australian Capital Territory 1 31.7 1 55.4 . . 11.9 . . 1.1 Australia 24 39.9 30 45.5 5 9 .6 1 5.0 1977 6 Senators 12 Senators ALP LIB/CP DEM Other ALP LIB/CP DEM Other New South Wales 3 3 6 5 6 1 12 Victoria 2 3 1 6 4 5 2 1 12 Queensland 2 3 1 6 5 (4) 6 (7) 1 12 South Australia 2 3 1 6 5 6 1 12 Western Australia 2 3 1 6 4 7 (6) 1 (2) 12 Tasmania 3 3 6 5 6 1 12 Northern Territory- Australian Capital Territory 1 1 2 2 2 4 Australia 15 19 4 38 30 (29) 38 7 (8) 76 Actual result 1/2 Senate election 14 18 2 1980 New South Wales 3 3 6 66 5 1 12 Victoria 3 3 6 6 5 1 12 Queensland 3 3 6 5 6 1 12 South Australia 2 3 1 6 5 6 (5) 1 (2) 12 Western Australia 3 3 6 5 6 1 12 Tasmania 2 3 1 6 4 (5) 5 3 (2) 12 Northern Territory- Australian Capital Territory 1 1 2 2 2 4 Australia 17 19 1 1 38 33 (34) 35 (34) 5 (6) 3 (2) 76 Actual result 1/2 Senate election 15 15 3 1 1983 New South Wales 3 2 1 6 6 5 1 12 Victoria 3 2 1 6 6 5 1 12 Queensland 2 3 1 6 5 6 (5) 1 12 South Australia 3 2 1 6 6 5 1 12 Western Australia 3 3 6 6 5 1 12 Tasmania 2 3 1 6 4 5 1 2 12 Northern Territory- Australian Capital Territory 1 1 2 2 2 4 Australia 17 16 4 1 38 35 33 6 2 76 30 28 5 1 Actual result-Full Senate Mr ANTHONY —The National Party supports the proposal for a modest increase in the number of senators. We believe this proposal recognises the reality of the work of Parliament today. We believe an increase in the size of Parliament is warranted and that now is the right time to take action to bring about that increase. The fact that this proposal is not popular in the community does not mean that it is wrong. Many of the things that parliaments and governments do are unpopular, but that does not mean that they are wrong. If we believe something is right we have a duty to support it and do it. The National Party believes that it is in the national interest, that it is for the better working of our democracy that this Parliament be increased. To suggest that there is not to be any increase is unreal and to suggest that there will not be an increase in the foreseeable future is ridiculous and indefensible. The need exists and I hope nobody will put any other interpretation on the National Party's support for this decision. Some people might want to make mischief out of the fact that the ALP has reacted favourably to our suggestion, saying that we are voting with it or that it is voting with us. We believe that it is the correct measure, popular or not. I have spent a large part of my time in this place working to implement things which are not always popular but which I believe are right and which have proved to be right. I think back to my battles over the wheat quotas in the 1960s. Nobody wanted them, everybody was against me, but I was proved to be right and the quotas were accepted. I remember the battles on import parity pricing of oil . Everybody was against it. It certainly was not popular. The public, if a poll had been conducted, would have voted 100 per cent against it but it was in the national interest, it was right and it was accepted. Things are not always popular but sometimes they have to be done. If we are guided in our actions simply by what we think is popular we do not deserve the responsibility that the electorate has given to us. The Liberal Party and the National Party have different views on this Bill. We in the National Party support it for reasons which I believe are sound while our colleagues in the Liberal Party oppose it for reasons which they believe are sound. I suppose that in a very mild way it is a bit like the kind of situation one gets in the Labor Caucus. The difference is, of course, that the Labor Caucus seems to split down the middle all the time with a vast gulf between the left wing and the right wing, the centre unity group and all the other odds and sods that turn up in the Labor Party. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is fond of describing this confused rabble as a magnificent example of the forces of democracy at work. The fact is that the differences between the various factions of the Labor Party are not minor. They are divided on great issues of principle and on issues of fundamental importance to the nation. The proposal to enlarge the Parliament is important, but I suggest it is hardly of earth shattering dimensions, and the difference approaches to it by the National Party and the Liberal Party will cause few people to sleep unsoundly in their beds tonight. Of course, the difference is to some extent one of degree in that the Liberal Party , while accepting that there may be a case for an increase in the future, feels that now is not the appropriate time. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House for its indulgence. I believe this is a tremendously important issue for this Parliament and for the nation. That is why I am trying to give it this considered approach. It is almost 35 years since the size of the Parliament was last increased. I do not think anyone would suggest that the work of the Parliament and the work load of members and senators has not increased substantially over that period. Not only has there been almost a doubling of the numbers of voters; there has also been a doubling of the number of people in Australia. We represent not only voters; we represent everyone in the community. Not only are there many more people to be represented here; there are also many more issues to be dealt with because of the range of responsibilities of the Federal Parliament. The Federal Government has increased enormously in recent years. In some ways this concentration of responsibility is regrettable. It is certainly regrettable that , under the present Government with its strong bias towards centralism, the weakening of the Federal system and the breaking down of the responsibilities and powers of the States, this trend is likely to accelerate. The fact is that this Parliament must deal with a vastly greater range of matters than in earlier years. Also, each member and senator must deal not only with more people but also with a much greater range and diversity of matters that affect people. Those of us who represent growing electorates know this only too well. In my electorate of Richmond there were 41,516 voters in 1958. Today, mainly because of the rapid influx of people who want to live in the best part of Australia, there are more than 85,000 voters. My job and the job of every member is to represent not just voters but all the people. In my electorate there would be at least 140,000 people whom it is my duty to represent. A few years ago a member of parliament did not have even an electorate office. When I first became a member of this Parliament I had an office in the Commonwealth Bank building in Sydney-the Federal parliamentary rooms. I had a secretary who lived in Sydney. All other members had an office there. Things have changed vastly since then. Today I have an electorate office with two staff who are in heavy demand to meet the requirements of constituents and to try to give them service and advice. I doubt whether two people could be more intensely worked than those two people. I am sure other members' staff work equally hard. With 29 per cent or 30 per cent unemployment in the area, the job of my staff is absolutely enormous. Of course, in the big country electorates the problem seems to get even worse. The country electorates are getting bigger and bigger and I think it is quite unreasonable and almost humanly impossible to expect members in these large electorates to meet the demands of their constituents. Every member who represents these electorates would be badgered constantly by the complaint: 'We never see you. Why are you not here more often?' It is not possible to do that and that is all there is to it. The range of legislation on the statute book has increased enormously. Of course, the size of the Executive has increased by 70 per cent since 1949. The pool of members in the legislature for government to draw from for Executive positions is declining. As the number of members in the Executive increases, the number of back benchers in the legislature declines. I do not believe it makes for the proper workings of government for the Executive to dominate so. Today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) virtually has control of 34 people whom he has the influence to appoint to the positions they hold. One cannot get a proper expression or reflection of the feelings and views that members wish to express in the Caucus or the Party room if that group is under his influence. The situation can be improved only if the numbers are increased. Such a state of affairs is not good or healthy for proper Party room expression. Of course, the number of committees of this Parliament has increased vastly. I notice that in the last 20 years the number of Senate committees-I am not talking about party committees-has increased from 13 to 33. Of course, there has also been a substantial increase in the number of committees of this House. Not that I believe in the committee system, but I think it is inevitable that we will need more and more committees if we are to carry out surveillance of departmental operations and the general workings of government and if we are to scrutinise legislation properly before it comes into this House for consideration. However, the fact is that we cannot properly service committees today. I have seen what happens. People going from one committee to another run into each other in the corridors. It is a crazy situation. Committees are not being attended in the way they should be. One finds only a token group of members when one goes to the dining room for a meal. When one asks where the other members are, one is told: 'Oh, they are having committee meetings during the meal recess'. One finds the chamber half vacant while debates are taking place. Where are the members? They are not necessarily working in their offices. In many cases they are attending committee meetings which are equally as important in their estimation as attending the workings of this Parliament. The argument for an increase in the number of members is very compelling indeed. I find it difficult to realise that people do not go along with it. One also has to consider the physical size of electorates. Those of us who represent country electorates have found that as the population of Australia has grown our electorates too have become larger not only in terms of voters and people but also in terms of area. The number of country electorates has tended to fall. New South Wales has four fewer electorates now than there were in 1949. This means that members from New South Wales country areas must represent more people spread over much larger areas. For example, the number of voters in the electorate of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt)-of course, he has represented it magnificently-has increased by 62 per cent and the area by over 300 per cent since the honourable member was elected. Yet many people in the community cannot see any need for some action to make more sensible and appropriate working arrangements for Parliament and for the people it represents . Part of the folklore, as I have said, is that country electorates have far fewer voters than do city electorates. There should be fewer voters in country electorates than in city electorates in the interests of real fairness and quality of representation. However, the fact is that today city electorates in New South Wales on average have fewer voters than do country electorates. Small, compact city electorates which are far easier to service have fewer voters than vast country electorates with all the difficulties of servicing that they have. I believe that the modest increase in the size of Parliament that is now proposed is a sensible and appropriate response to this situation. However, of course, there are other significant factors. I realise that I have been given the indulgence of the House to speak for longer than is allowed. I would like to say more. I have come into this debate believing in all sincerity that this is the right decision. I will be very disappointed if the people misconstrue the genuine contribution of my party, the National Party of Australia, and the genuine and sincere reasons why it wants to see an increase in the size of the Parliament. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(8.40) —At the outset, I am bound to refer honourable members again to page 206 of Hansard of 4 May 1983. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), the spokesperson for the Liberal Party and the Opposition in these matters, moved an amendment to the motion to appoint a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform seeking to insert the following new sub- paragraph: (g) electoral distribution and numbers of Members of Parliament, procedures and systems. In the course of supporting the amendment, the honourable member for Boothby said: I have included this as an additional point of study and recommendation for the Minister's consideration because the number of members of parliament is a very important aspect. . . . . Because of the obvious value it would be to the community I hope that he can see his way clear to express an opinion on this quite important matter of the number of representatives in this House and the other House. His subsequent contribution to the House has been breathtaking in its philosophical flexibility. He has, with some confected outrage, come into this House and slammed these proposals quite simply because he is in the luxurious position of not having to treat them on their merits. As the proposals will go through, simply because of support from the National Party and broad bipartisan support from the Joint Select Committee, including qualified support from Senator Sir John Carrick, it is very easy for members of the Liberal Party to luxuriate in the position of being able to score a cheap political point or two. Let us get back to some of the figures we are looking at. In my own State of Victoria the average enrolment is 75,663 electors for each division. That is an 82.3 per cent increase since the last redistribution. Even taking into account these proposals, the actual increase in electors during that period will still be in the order of 54 per cent-a significant increase. The increased workload of members of parliament has been adequately addressed by previous speakers. I shall not spend any time reiterating those arguments. There is one aspect, however, that has not been addressed, that is the implications for the democratic process of bringing the number of electors in each division thoughout Australia to a figure approaching equality. In Tasmania the five divisions currently have an enrolment of 56,493 electors on average. Of course, under these proposals that figure will not change but certainly the average number of electors in each division throughout Australia will. The average enrolment will drop from 74,989 to 63,335. It is a significant differential in those divisions but it is a move in the right direction towards the fundamental principle of one vote one value. A moment ago, a member of the Liberal component of the Opposition, when he addressed this matter, expressed some outrage at what implicitly was a misinterpretation of Senator Sir John Carrick's position. Let me say at the outset that his qualification certainly was that because of the recession one ought not to go fully down this road at the moment and that it would seem to be an inopportune time to move. In addressing the principle we can all argue about whether it is the appropriate time or not, or indeed whether there ever will be an appropriate time with regard to these matters. They will inevitably be electorally unpopular and, as the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) has indicated, one ought not to resile from making hard decisions simply because they will be electorally unpopular. I seem to recall a reasonably successful Prime Minister who, when leading the now Opposition, elevated the making of unpopular decisions to an art form and for some considerable time had a fairly successful electoral record. Let me quote from the dissenting report of Senator Sir John Carrick. On page 235 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform he said: Many of the arguments adduced for an enlarged parliament are cogent. The Australian population has grown rapidly since 1948 (almost doubled) and the demands upon parliamentarians in a more complex social framework have greatly increased. Certainly the extra burden cannot be fully met simply by increasing the size of the member's personal staff. The community will continue to demand the personal presence and attentions of the member. Here we have the germ of another dispute in the Liberal Party. Of course, the honourable member for Boothby has made great play of the alternative of increasing the number of staff as one way in which we might resolve the problems of the significantly increased demands on parliamentarians. That is not a view embraced by his colleague on the Joint Select Committee, Senator Sir John Carrick, who further said: In my view, while the logic of a larger parliament is strong, the overriding restraints of the current economic period must prevail. I add that simply to be fair to the honourable senator and to put on record the points to which I adverted earlier. He did say that many of the arguments adduced for an enlarged Parliament are cogent, and he went on to agree with it in principle, while not supporting it for the moment on the grounds of economic needs. A range of matters were adduced by the various honourable members who spoke prior to me. I simply want to say that, as a relatively new member of the Parliament and as one of the members of the Joint Select Committee, my views on this matter have not been based upon the premise of adopting the most cynical position. I personally do not believe that the Australian Labor Party will be advantaged by these proposals and I certainly do not embrace the view which some of the Liberal members seem to embrace that their Party will be necessarily disadvantaged. There are so many variables which might touch upon the results of any election that they are at the most only of marginal import. The subject of the work load of honourable members was addressed by the Leader of the National Party and it was certainly addressed in some detail. I do not think that honourable members need reminding, but people listening might be interested to get some idea of the work load of an ordinary humble back bencher in this Parliament. I have had employment in the past when I have worked like the proverbial drover's dog, but I must say with all sincerity that I have never had employment which has demanded quite so much in terms of application or time as has this form of employment. I know that might be greeted with some cynicism in terms of the electorate, but that remains the case. The view that there ought to be an increased Parliament was not a submission of the Australian Labor Party , but that of itself is not a reason to reject it. One proposal from the Australian Labor Party was that variations in electoral enrolments ought not to vary by anything greater than 5 per cent. On the basis of the submissions put before the Committee and against my original intuitive feeling on that matter the Joint Select Committee unanimously agreed that the variation ought to remain at 10 per cent. That was because the arguments put before the Committee were compelling in their logic. I simply wish to put on record that my views on this matter changed because of the logic of the case. It had nothing to do with any other factors that, implicitly, the honourable member for Boothby was imputing to those members of the Joint Select Committee who did not support his point of view. My commitments in the Federal Parliament-I would assume it is a fairly average work load for a new back bencher-include my membership of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which has been, quite clearly, a significant work load in the last few months. I am also a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which involves a reasonably heavy work load, although not quite as heavy, of course, as the work load involved with the Electoral Reform Committee. I am a member of the House Committee on Privileges. I cannot claim that that has been a particularly heavy work load, although in certain circumstances-- Mr Hodgman —Not yet. Wait until after my motion. Mr GRIFFITHS —I shall be having something to say about the motion of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in due course too. In any event I am also a member of the Caucus foreign affairs and defence committee, the Caucus economics committee and some three or four sub-committees of those committees. In terms of Party involvement, I am a member of the Victoria State Administrative Committee, the Victorian State Campaign Committee and the Civil Rights and Law Reform Committee. One could go on. Quite clearly, that is the sort of work load that many members need to fill. They are all important parts of the functioning of this Parliament. Mr Hodgman —You will not be one of the 13 oncers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr GRIFFITHS —I am not too concerned about those types of interjections. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Well, they are annoying me. Mr Hodgman —I complimented you. Mr GRIFFITHS —It is not often that I am complimented by the honourable member for Denison. In any event, that is for public consumption. Certainly the honourable members in this place are quite well aware of the sorts of demands placed upon us. I simply say in concluding that the strength of the parliamentary system and of the Parliament, as opposed to the Executive, is predicated substantially upon the need for back benchers to have the time and resources to make a proper contribution to the governments of this country. That will not be the case when the work load is simply too big for even the most assidious and hard-working back benchers to handle properly. When the honourable member for Boothby was in this House with his confected outrage-I believe having forgotten that he moved the motions to which I adverted earlier-I suspect that that may have been a function of a significant work load. It is surprising in the extreme that someone could have come into this House, moved the motions, put the views he put and, some months later, come into the same chamber and attack the very proposals that he actually moved in the House. I shall not go on. The other aspect of an increased Parliament, the fact that, for example, in the House of Commons the back bench involvement in parliamentary reform and the various Bills that come through the House is significantly greater than it is in this House-that was made clear by the submission of Professor Gordon Reid-the larger pool of talent from which the Executive might be chosen and so on, are all fundamental reasons why we must take this unpopular decision. I personally believe that this may damage the Government electorally but that, of itself, is no reason to resile from taking a decision that is in the best interests of this Parliament. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.55) —I oppose the proposals we have before us to extend the size of this Federal Parliament and I do so for three fundamental reasons. Firstly, I believe that instead of focusing on increasing the size of the Parliament to cope with its existing work load, we should look primarily at reducing the size of government and the work of this Parliament. Secondly, I do not believe that we can support a reduction in the size of electorates, in effect voting ourselves an easier job, at a time when Australia is facing such difficult economic circumstances and when so many Australians are being asked to tighten their belts. Thirdly, I do not believe that we can support an increase in the number of parliamentarians when that proposition was never put to the electors and quite clearly flouts the wishes of the great majority of Australians. Before I go on to develop these points I want to put to rest the allegations that have been made by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) concerning the amendment moved on 4 May by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). They allege that the honourable member for Boothby spoke in favour of an increase in the number of members of parliament. He did not. I will read what he said at page 206 of Hansard of 4 May: I must say, though, that there are some limitations on the motion put forward by the Minister that I seek to remedy by the amendments which I have moved. The first amendment seeks to add to paragraph (1) (g) of the motion the words 'and numbers of members of Parliament'. I have included this as an additional point of study and recommendation for the Minister's consideration because the number of members of parliament is a very important aspect. It is a subject of great concern to some people. If this is included in the terms agreed to by the Minister it would allow members of the public to give their views as to whether there should be more members of parliament, whether the status quo should be retained or whether there should be fewer members of parliament. Honourable members opposite can criticise the honourable member for Boothby for the principle of his argument if they like but they cannot criticise him for putting it forward. Mr Griffiths —Keep reading. Mr PEACOCK —I will keep reading after the duplicitous remarks that the honourable member for Maribyrnong came out with tonight. Both he and the honourable member for Prospect were downright dishonest. The downright dishonesty of their remarks is exceeded only by their duplicity and they ought to be nailed for it. I will go on and they will see that the honourable member for Boothby was expanding on this point that it ought to be examined. Having said that we should look at whether there should be more members of parliament, whether the status quo should be retained or whether there should be fewer members of parliament he said: Every member of this House in moving around his electorate would have heard views one way or the other on this issue. I recommend to the Minister for his consideration, and I hope acceptance, this addition to paragraph (1) (g). Because of the obvious value it would be to the community-- that is, to get that reference in (1) (g)- I hope that he can see his way clear to express an opinion on this quite important matter of the number of representatives in this House and the other House. He got that accepted and, when he had listened to argument, he put in a dissenting report. He had it examined and he put his opposition in a dissenting report. Then he came in, consistent to the end, arguing the case against additional members for the Parliament. The tortuous form of logic that the honourable member for Maribyrnong so dishonestly intrudes into this debate speaks for itself as to why he ought not even to be in this Parliament if he cannot tell the truth. Mr Griffiths —You won't be in the Parliament much longer. Mr PEACOCK —Selective misquotation is an attempt at selective morality and that is what-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! The House will come to order. Mr PEACOCK —I will not have my members berated by his dishonest remarks. Mr Griffiths —You insipid little man. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong will cease his interjections. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat when the Chair calls for order. Mr PEACOCK —If this creature that has taken his place in the Parliament seeks to misquote any members of my Party he will get it back even more forcefully than I have given it to him tonight. The measure before us raises significant issues of principle which the logic of this tortuous creature was unable to put forward tonight when he talked about unpopularity. The work of this Parliament, of course, is important. Indeed, the importance of the Parliament in our democratic system of government cannot be overstated. We need governments to do what cannot be left to individuals and the private sector . We need governments to protect the weak and to protect individuals under the law. We need governments to do those things, but only those things. Parliament is the central institution in our system of government; for not only is the Government drawn from the elected members of the Parliament, but it is also the role of the Parliament, its constitutional role, to protect people from capricious use of the power of government. Taxes cannot be levied and moneys cannot be spent, except with the approval of the Parliament, on behalf of the people. Laws cannot be imposed to constrain the behaviour of individuals without the approval of the Parliament, on behalf of the people. The responsibilities of members of parliament are great and demanding. We are charged not only with protecting the interests of the people against the capricious use of power but also with ensuring that what governments do, they do efficiently, effectively and equitably. Although there is a natural tendency to focus on the activities of members in the two Houses, in Question Time and in debates, as all honourable members are all too well aware, these are only the most visible dimension of the tasks of representation and scrutiny with which we are charged; tasks which include the work load in our own electorates, in our party organisations, in committees of the Parliament, and so on. I am conscious of the burdens placed upon members of parliament who are also Ministers or the holders of some other office. These positions are often very time consuming and, without effective organisation of time, may on occasion limit one's ability to meet the legitimate needs of constituents. I think all members of my Party and the National Party, at least, seek to ensure that this does not happen. However, I do not believe that this gives rise to a need for an expansion in the size of Parliament. On the contrary, I believe that these burdens and pressures can be better met by alternative mechanisms. It is essential that our Parliament is adequately equipped to perform the tasks with which it has been charged. To be sure, all dimensions of our activities have been growing greatly, but we should not uncritically accept, as the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) did last week, that we need more politicians to cope with an unstoppable increase in the business of the Government. We should instead be considering whether the growth of the business of government can be held back. The work load of politicians has increased partly because the government is increasingly intruding into a whole variety of new areas. There is little doubt that, given the current Government's desire to regulate and control what should be individual decisions and to intrude into areas that should be the responsibility of State governments, the list of areas with which politicians will have to become familiar will increase dramatically during its term of office. An interventionist Labor government will ensure that there is sufficient work to keep any number of politicians busy. The facts are that government intervention has already gone too far and that the growth of regulation, in particular, should be rolled back. In other words, rather than expand the work to suit the large number of politicians Labor will make available, we should hold back the growth of government to reduce the burden on our existing politicians, and the burden on Australian taxpayers. Too often and for too long the community has ignored the cost of government intervention and regulation. Between 1970 and 1979-I choose those dates to encompass both Labor and Liberal governments-there were 2,988 new laws enacted by this Federal Parliament and 4,980 new regulations were introduced. The community has to understand and adhere to those laws and regulations. That, in itself, is a challenge. It also has to pay the bills. The bills are increasing all the time. So instead of considering increases in the size of the Parliament to cope with this level of activity, the people of Australia have a right to expect that we should be considering ways in which we could reduce this level of activity, produce a smaller government and reduce the burden on both industry and taxpayers. As the Minister indicated last week, the ordinary back bencher is today expected to be conversant with new policy trends and to be a watchdog holding the government accountable to his or her constituents. An increase in the number of parliamentarians will not achieve this. It will happen only if governments vacate areas in which they should not be involved. This is the only way to reduce the burden on individual back benchers. It is the only way to enable them to represent their electorates even more effectively. It is the only way to ensure the effective operation of this Parliament. Part of the reason the work load of the Parliament has increased is that it has taken over responsibilities more properly the function of other levels of government. Put simply, there has been a tendency for power in this country to become more centralised with Federal governments acquiring power at the expense of the States. Australia's federal system is a recognition that political decision-making must be as close and as relevant to individuals as possible. If it is not, if political power is concentrated in Canberra, then the danger of a central government overlooking and, indeed, being insensitive to the needs of the community become very great indeed. Without an effective devolution of political power there are no checks and balances. That simple fact is being forgotten. One of the simplest and most effective ways of reducing the work load of members of parliament would be to limit the activities of this Parliament to those which are the proper responsibility of the Commonwealth and to leave to the State parliaments those matters which are more properly their function. There can be no doubt that if this Parliament vacated those areas of intrusion into the affairs of individuals that can be left to the individuals themselves and vacated those areas that are, more properly, the responsibility of State parliaments, the work load of individual members would be substantially reduced. We should be looking to make our Parliament more cost effective, for example, by removing duplication of the work of State parliaments rather than simply increasing its costs. Indeed, I would have thought that this point would have appealed to the Government; it has said so often that the burden of restraint during a time of economic hardship should be shared equitably throughout the community. It has used this argument to justify the taxes it has threatened or imposed on so many people in the past eight months. It has used this argument to justify its threats against those income earners not covered by its deal with the unions. What are those people supposed to think when the Government ignores its own advice? They will not see a larger parliament as the road to more effective government; they will see it as a sign of a profligate government whose belief in restraint is simply superficial. They will see it as a government which wants to make life easier for politicians at a time when sensible commentators are urging everyone else to tighten the belt and make us more competitive. They will see it as a government which talks about equitable sharing of the burden but which really believes that some are more equal than others. The Government's National Economic Summit Conference, if nothing else, at least showed that the Government believes that symbolic acts can affect real economic decisions and actions. I believe that the proposal to enlarge the Parliament could easily become a potent economic symbol, a symbol which could jeopardise the efforts of those urging restraint on the rest of the community. It is, in our view in the Liberal Party the last thing we need at this time of conomic difficulty when the real need is to create the private sector jobs which will remove our tragic unemployment problem, not to set up symbols of public extravagance which may hinder the achievement of this crucial objective. In introducing this measure on 2 November, the Minister referred to the fact that people have 'become cynical about their politicians', a fact which he attributes to their being 'placed in the position of not being able to serve their constituents, let alone play an active role in their national Parliament'. But there can be no measure more calculated to heighten that cynicism than to take action which is directly contrary to the wishes of the electors of Australia. Before the 5 March election the Australian, Labor Party issued a comprehensive document entitled 'Labor and the quality of government' which dealt with the role and functioning of parliament. But nowhere in that document did Labor indicate that it intended to enlarge the size of parliament. Labor knew, as it knew in so many other areas where it made undertakings and broke them, that such a proposition would never attract the people's support. The proposition to enlarge the Parliament has been put to the people before and they have indicated clearly their response. In 1967 the referendum proposal to break the nexus between the size of the two Houses was largely fought on the issue of whether the size of Parliament should be increased. The people resoundingly defeated that proposal. Mr Beazley —Not in Western Australia; it was fought on State rights. Mr PEACOCK —I was participating in it. I do not know whether the honourable member was muking or puking. I respected his father as a participant in the Parliament. If he were here today he would confirm that the argument that was adduced against us time and again on that issue was that there should be no more politicians. Any poll taken since that referendum has produced a similar or worse result. The gallup poll published in October of this year showed that 76 per cent of the population was against the measure now before us and that only 13 per cent was in favour of it. The Minister concluded his remarks when introducing this measure with the comment: This is a matter of principle and, as such, must outweigh any short-term unpopularity that may attach to the legislation. Important matters of principle are involved in this measure. One of those princples is the accountability of the members of this Parliament to the electors who put them here. Simply put, there is no mandate for the measure before us-no mandate whatsoever. If a mandate were sought it would not be granted. Let us look at the facts outlined in the dissenting report by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. He pointed out: There are 189 members in the Federal Parliament and 562 members in the six State Parliaments. Collectively therefore 751 members of Parliament serve the public and compete for political approval. They are joined by 19 members of the Northern Territory Assembly and the Australian Capital Territory Assembly of 18. Quite obviously the different Parliaments operate with their own constitutions and state administrations are confined to their own borders. However, they are all part of a Federal system and Commonwealth electors are also State electors. Taking all 788 politicians including members of the two assemblies into the calculation, Australia has a member for each 12,000 electors. Given these facts, one can understand why the majority of the public is so opposed to yet more politicians. On no reading of these figures could I or my Party depart from that widely held view. The question before us undoubtedly raises matters of great principle-that I do not deny. But the issues at stake are not as simple as the Minister implied in his speech last week. The question we should be asking is not whether the work load of the Parliament has reached a level at which additional representatives are required. The question we should be asking is whether the work load of the Commonwealth Parliament has been pushed beyond the level which is required for responsible and responsive government. The question we should be asking is whether the Commonwealth has intruded into areas and activities for which it has no proper responsibility. Time and again the people have made it clear that they do not want more parliamentarians. Time and again the people have made clear that they do not want higher taxes and bigger government. Time and again the States have made clear that the Commonwealth has increasingly intruded into their areas of responsibility. If the Government really wanted to ensure that the people's interests were adequately represented by their Federal members, and if it really wanted to ensure that Australia's system of government was truly responsive to the needs of the people of Australia, it would be looking at how to return to the States those functions which are appropriately theirs. It would be looking at how to return to the private sector those functions which are appropriately located there. It would be looking at how to restore economic growth and prosperity to the Australian economy and not at how to make more work for more members of parliament at a cost to the Australian people. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(9.15) —This evening we are discussing the Representation Bill. The function of that Bill, as honourable members are aware, is to increase the size of the Senate and the size of the House of Representatives. Tonight we have heard some rather curious points of view put forward in this chamber by the Opposition. Dr Klugman —Which Opposition? Mr LEO McLEAY —As the honourable member for Prospect asks, which Opposition? I think what has been said here this evening shows why Joh Bjelke-Petersen decided to get rid of the Liberal Party in Queensland. It is obvious that from the Opposition benches the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) was the one who dominated the debate. The most sensible arguments were ones put forward by him, not by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who is the Leader of the Liberal Party. One would think that the Liberals might be in support of this legislation because any legislation which will increase the size of this chamber and widen the pool of members of parliament who are available for leadership in this place might be of benefit to the Liberal Party. From tonight's debate it is obvious that the Leader of the National Party is the person who makes the most sense in this chamber in speaking on behalf of the Opposition parties in this House. We also heard a number of erroneous points of view put forward by the Leader of the Opposition when he stated that members of parliament are now more able to get around and do their jobs than at any other time in the history of this Federation. I guess the question one could ask is: How do our constituents perceive our capacity to do our job? If I were a constituent of the honourable member for Kooyong, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose in recent years I would have had difficulty knowing where to go to find him to talk to him because it was only recently that he opened an electorate office. If anyone wanted to see me or my predecessor one knew where to go because my predecessor, Hon. Frank Stewart, opened the first suburban electoral office of any member of this Parliament so that the people from the local suburbs knew where to go to see their representative. It is only recently, since the Leader of the Opposition had preselection troubles, that he has done constituents the service of opening an office for them. So it depends upon the perspective in which we look at people and the perspective which we adopt when we are seeing whether they are getting the representation they should get. Mr Brumby —Where would they have gone to see him? Mr LEO McLEAY —Goodness knows where they would have gone to see him. I do not know whether his name is even in the phone book. Dr Klugman —New York. Mr LEO McLEAY —They may have gone to New York or they may have made STD telephone calls, as they used to have to do to talk to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who is now the Deputy Leader of the National Party. But at least they can get in touch with him now, so maybe he has learned a little bit, and as he learns a bit more he might realise that it is in Australia's interests that we do something about-- Mr Brumby —They could have dropped into the local nightclub. Mr LEO McLEAY —That is true. It might be in Australia's interests that we do something about enlarging the size of this House because, as the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) said in his second reading speech, the last occasion on which there was a substantial increase in the size of the Parliament was in 1948. In the 35 years since then Australia's population has approximately doubled. We have not increased the size of the State parliaments in that time. In 1948 there were about the same number of State members of parliament as there are now. The population that the members of this Parliament have to represent has doubled. Indeed, in my electorate there are the elements of five State electorates. Five State members of parliament represent the people in my electorate and they have one Federal member. I suggest that the type of work a member does in an electorate such as mine, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the suburbs of Melbourne, is such that the workload has increased substantially and the number of people-the important thing is to remember the number of people we represent-has increased substantially. I find in my electorate, as do many other honourable members who represent inner suburban or outer suburban electorates, that the number of people I represent has increased substantially in the last 15 years and is far out of kilter with the population that was represented by a member in 1948. The role that a Federal member of parliament plays has increased significantly in those years as well. Since 1948 Federal members of parliament have had to take on interests in areas such as Aboriginal affairs, more extensive social welfare and health policies, legislation on matters such as company law, education, environment and conservation matters, family law, the status of women, law reform and legal aid, ethnic affairs, consumer affairs-the list goes on and on. If a person who was a member of this Parliament in 1948 came back here today he would find the place substantially different, the role of a member of parliament absolutely different and the work load trebled or quadrupled. I do not believe that our constituents get sufficient representation now because of the work load that has been put on members of parliament. If we increase the size of the House and, indeed, the size of the Senate a better service will be able to be given to people. There is no point in the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), who came into this chamber earlier with some pious thoughts, stating on behalf of the Liberal Party that in 1952 a member of parliament received #8 in stamp money. I do not know what the average weekly earnings were in 1952. They may even have been #8 or less. But for the honourable member for Boothby to quote things that happened in 1952 and from speeches by Harold Holt some time later really gets away from the point. Mr Holding —He lives in the past. Mr LEO McLEAY —As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has said, he lives in the past. Probably he needs to quote from the past. It is important that we should consider some of the honourable member for Boothby's past when we are looking at this legislation. In talking to us earlier this evening he said that the worst thing that could happen because of this legislation was that we could get splinter parties in the Senate. God forbid that we should get splinter parties in the Senate! They could do all sorts of terrible things for democracy. They could ruin the country; they could do anything. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Boothby is probably the best person in this House to talk to us about the iniquitous problems of splinter parties. After all, he formed one of the significant splinter parties that played a rather rabid role in this Parliament in the recent past. He has only recently reformed himself with his own Party. It was not so long ago that he was sitting in the Senate piously claiming to represent the Liberal Movement, or some other esoteric group, that was going to reform the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party, the National Party and goodness knows what else. He has quickly been brought to heel. He rejoined the Liberal Party and was given a nice seat in the Federal Parliament. He now has the hide to come into this House and tell us about the horrors of splinter parties. He was one of the members of a horrible splinter party less than 10 years ago. I see the Leader of the National Party, nodding his head in agreement. He had to put up with him in those days. Unfortunately for him, he has to put up with him now as well. We need to look at the reason the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that was so well chaired by my colleague the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) suggested this legislation. It is interesting to look at the role the honourable member for Boothby had to play in the reference that this Committee had to deal with on the size of the Parliament. As has been pointed out earlier this evening, on 4 May this year the honourable member for Boothby moved that the terms of reference of that Committee be extended to include: . . . electoral distribution and numbers of Members of Parliament, procedures and systems. After moving that motion he went on to say: I have included this as an additional point of study and recommendation for the Minister's-- that is a reference to the Special Minister of State- consideration because the number of members of parliament is a very important aspect. Any normal person would have read that statement and said: 'Yes, he seems to be in favour of some change'. Normally one would have thought that the honourable member for Boothby may have been in favour of a change to increase the size of the Parliament. The honourable member for Boothby has said that that was a mistake. He did not really mean that at all. His colleague has said that we have quoted him out of context, that we have said that the honourable member for Boothby was in favour of a change and really what he wanted was to have fewer members of parliament. I might have been willing to accept that if at any time during the course of the discussions of that Committee the honourable member for Boothby had said that he wanted fewer members of parliament. He did not say that at any time. My colleagues on the Committee and the Minister have confirmed that . At no time did the honourable member for Boothby say that there ought to be fewer members of parliament until recently, until the heavies in the Liberal Party of Australia got on to him and said: 'You cannot have any more members of parliament because it does not suit us'. But that is not what the ex-Leader of the Government in the Senate who was a member of the Committee had to say. Senator Sir John Carrick, in his dissenting report, said: In my view, while the logic of a larger parliament is strong, the overriding restraints of the current economic period must prevail. Senator Sir John Carrick did not say there should not be more members of parliament. He just said this may not be the right time. The honourable member for Boothby, of course, in all the discussions of the Committee, did not think anything about the size of the parliament until members of his party nobbled him later. They nobbled poor old Senator Sir John Carrick as well because he sits on the back bench now. If there were more people to decide the leadership he might have another chance. I think that in dealing with this Bill we should consider another point. I refer to the role of members of parliament in areas where there are large ethnic communities and where the number of enrolled voters is declining rapidly. In my electorate of Grayndler there are 123,000 people. Every house has a family in it . The same number of people live in that electorate as lived in the electorate 37 years ago when Fred Daly became the first member for Grayndler. Since Fred Daly became the first member for Grayndler we have changed the migration pattern to this country. Most of the new settlers coming to Australia move into that area first. They are not citizens. By the time they become citizens they have moved somewhere else. The people who represent these areas do not get any electoral credit or electoral assistance for the people they represent. About 60 per cent of the people on whose behalf I make representations to the Australian Government are not citizens. I believe that those people are discriminated against because they have less of my time than people who are represented by members on the North Shore of Sydney and other areas of Australia where the number of people eligible to be enrolled is very close to the number of people who are enrolled. I think that we should give some recognition to that fact as well. The people of my electorate are sick and tired of seeing part of it disappear every time there is a redistribution. In the last 14 years the number of members of parliament representing the inner western suburbs of Sydney-I have no doubt this applies to Melbourne as well-has been reduced from nine to four. The same number of people live there and the same houses are in the streets. In fact there are probably more people there now because of home unit development which had not taken place previously. We now find that instead of having nine people to represent them in this Parliament they have only four people. This legislation will go some way towards redressing that problem. I think that the House should reject most of the rather fallacious arguments of the Opposition. Dr Klugman —The Liberals. Mr LEO McLEAY —It is the official Opposition, I guess. I think the honourable member for Prospect has raised a very important point that I would like to finish up on. We should remember that this piece of legislation was prompted by a term of reference put forward by the honourable member for Boothby, the Liberal spokesman on electoral matters. It has been agreed to by members of the Australian Labor Party, members of the National Party and members of the Australian Democrats. I think it is the only piece of legislation on which we have had real consensus in this Parliament for many years. It would be a great shame if the House rejected it. I think the Liberal Party should put aside the rather impotent arguments it has put forward here tonight. Members of the Liberal Party should join with their more far-sighted colleagues from the National Party. They ought to realise that if they are not too careful what happened to their colleagues in Queensland will happen to them here unless they widen the leadership pool from which they can draw. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(9.30) —As someone who represents the largest electorate in Australia-some 200,000 people lived in McPherson at the time of the 1981 census- I believe I have something to contribute to this debate. I have listened with interest to the arguments put forward from honourable members on both sides of the House. I recognise that there are some very strong arguments for increasing the number of members of parliament at this time and there are equally strong, or stronger, arguments against that action. At the outset I make my position clear. I oppose the Representation Bill. In due course, the time will come when we will need to increase the number of members in the House of Representatives but I can see no argument, nor have I heard any argument put forward by anybody, for increasing the number of senators in the Australian Parliament. The obvious answer to the problem is to break the nexus. That was tried in a referendum in 1967 and it failed. But the fact is that that referendum was held some years ago. I would have thought that before we rush into increasing the number of senators and therefore increasing the number of members, in a desperation move, at least we should again put the matter in a referendum to the Australian people, thus breaking the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives so that the number of members in the House of Representatives can in due course be increased. There is no need, nor will there ever be as far as I can see, to increase the number of senators. I will take up some of the Australian Labor Party arguments in favour of increasing the number of members in the Parliament. One of them is that in 1948 the population of this country was seven million people and now it is some 15 million. The average number of voters in an electorate has increased from 40,000 to 70,000. Obviously this means more work needs to be done in the electorate. However, communications and transport have improved markedly and to a large extent office facilities have become considerably better. I am not saying-I will put the argument later-that we should not be looking at employing more staff to assist members in their work and we should not have access to better office equipment such as word processors. It is a reasonable proposition to have more staff. In 1977, the Remuneration Tribunal recommended that at least one extra member of staff be given to each honourable member. I reject the argument that just because the number of electors in an electorate has increased we need more staff to cope. Another Government argument has been that parliamentary responsibilities have increased. Each member must cope with more committee work and more legislation. That is certainly true. There is an unwillingness on the part of some honourable members to accept the responsibility to serve on committees. Serious consideration should be given requiring each member to serve on a committee. Honourable members should not leave to a small percentage of honourable members the committee work which has to be done, a lot of which is fairly dreary. Just because we increase the number of members of parliament does not mean that we will cut down on the number of committees. We will probably increase the number of committees in line with the increase in the number of members of the Parliament. We should seriously be looking at reducing the amount of legislation. There is too much centralisation of political control in this country. It is a dream of the Australian Labor Party to centralise control totally in Canberra. In debate after debate in this House since I have been a member, members have suggested it is time that State governments were abolished altogether. One sees Government members nodding vigorously. Yes they say, let us get rid of the State governments. So it is a dream to centralise political control by the government in Canberra. I see that another honourable member is agreeing with me. This is part of that dream. This is a step towards that dream. It will never happen; nor should it happen. What we should be doing is looking at a lot of the useless legislation we put through this Parliament and passing it back to the States. I give just one example, concerning nursing homes. Here we have the national Parliament, with a Minister personally responsible for administering the subsidy to 1,400 nursing homes in Australia. That is not a party political point because that system came in when we were in government, but it shows the stupidity of centralised political control for the national Parliament to be administering a subsidy to 1,400 individual nursing homes. For God's sake, it is time we got rid of that and passed the responsibility back where it belongs. Then we would have less legislation with which to deal in the national Parliament. One of the other arguments is that this increase would provide a bigger pool of potential Ministers. More members will not mean better members. The problem is one of attracting into this place more able members. I seriously suggest that we examine the possibility of creating assistant Ministers, so that people get some experience in the responsibility of administering portfolios. So for all those Government and Labor Party arguments that have been put forward, I agree with none of them. In direct contrast, as against those ALP arguments, I believe that Australia is well served by politicians. The figure of 788 has been quoted frequently here tonight. Some say that it is a simplistic argument to say that, because there are 788 politicians in Australia, that does not mean that they are all doing the job about which we are talking. The fact is that if one asks the majority of Australians whether there are enough politicians in this country, very few of them would not say that there are too many. There are 788 in a country of 15 million people. Mr Steedman —Far too many. Mr WHITE —There we are; my friend agrees. If he agrees that there are too many, why is he proposing to increase the number? Mr Steedman —To get rid of the States. Mr WHITE —So it is not a simplistic argument. It is a very practical argument; one politician per 12,000 voters. It is no use comparing those sorts of figures with those in other countries. What we are talking about is what is best for Australia. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) was talking about five State members in his electorate. There are four State members in my electorate, which is about three too many. We must ask ourselves whether the people of Australia want so many politicians as a burden round their necks. Let me deal with the prospect of better communications, more staff and improved office procedures. We need an increase in staff; another staff member per member of parliament. Office facilities must be increased. We have not had an improvement in office facilities for as long as I have been a member of this Parliament, and for a long time before that. Mr Young —That is your fault. Mr WHITE —I have not seen the honourable gentleman do too much about it yet. Of course, he is not in a position to do anything about it at present. In 1977 the Remuneration Tribunal recommended that an extra staff member be provided. Unfortunately, that has not come to pass. Why do we not look at that provision now before we start increasing the number of politicians? We are building a magnificent new Parliament House, but I think that all of us agree that one of the reasons for our difficulties in working here is that we have very few facilities in Parliament House. I cannot bring my secretary down here. I tried it once. I took the refrigerator out of the cupboard and I put the chair in the cupboard so she could sit there and type. Why do we not increase facilities in the Parliament so that people can work in reasonable comfort? Let us look at the problem of senators. If we increase the number of senators in Australia the Tasmanian numbers will also rise. With a population of some 430 ,000 Tasmania already has 10 senators, five members of the House of Representatives, 19 members in the upper House and 35 in the lower House-a total of 69 politicians. How will we go to the Australian public and tell them that if we are to increase the Senate by 12 senators and the House of Representatives by 23 members Tasmania will also get even more? It is an impossible argument to sustain. Let me turn to the question of what would happen in the Senate if this proposal went through. Certainly another 12 senators will lower the quota. We are, whether one likes it or not, going to get a number of single issue candidates who, because of the lower quota, will come into the Senate. I have heard honourable members on both sides of the chamber say that that would not be a bad thing. The fact is that single issue candidates in this Parliament have a very limited future. All they do is obstruct the process of government, whatever government is in power at the time. I do not believe that that is a valid argument at all. It is an argument which is strongly against increasing the number of senators. This Bill proposes an extra 12 senators and as a consequence, an extra 23 members in the House of Representatives-an extra 35 members of parliament. We have to ask ourselves whether this is justified. In my view the answer is no. The aim is to increase services to the Australian people by their politicians; to make politicians more effective. I propose that this Bill not be proceeded with, that we should make constant efforts to strive for smaller government and return responsibility where it should be instead of trying to centralise it in this place. We are just coming out of a recession and the last thing Australians want are 35 more unproductive politicians. We should be giving extra facilities for members as a start before we increase the size of this Parliament, as we do now for members with large electorates. That system should be expanded. We should hold a referendum again to try to break the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives so when the time does come to increase the number of members in this place we do not have to increase the number of senators in order to do so. For all these reasons, I oppose this Bill. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(9.43) —As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and one who supported the proposal to enlarge Parliament, I am pleased that the Government has seen fit to increase the representation in this place. I suppose two of the most difficult things that politicians ever have to do is to persuade the people, firstly, that they are in need of a parliamentary salary rise on the one hand or, secondly, that there is a need for additional politicans. It is very easy for people to make an argument against why there should be an increase in politicians. But there are very sound reasons for the increase, some of which have been canvassed by my Leader, the right honourable Leader of the National Party and honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony), who has been a very firm advocate for much of his parliamentary career for increasing the size of this Parliament. He is the Father of the House and has every reason to be proud of it. He was a very strong advocate for a yes vote in that referendum of 1967, a referendum that was agreed to by the Menzies Government and that was supported by the then Country Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party. But because of the activities of a splinter party and a couple of senators who stormed the countryside putting an argument against more politicians, that referendum to break the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives was lost. The result and the reasons for the outcome are now history. The National Party therefore commissioned Malcolm Mackerras to prepare a paper on a proposal to enlarge the Parliament by making a small increase in the number of senators. This paper was made available to the Joint Select Committee. The New South Wales National Party submission, which was a very good submission-it was one of the best submissions that went before the Committee-made a very strong reference to the Mackerras proposal. Indeed, it highlighted and canvassed some of the advantages of the proposal. I am very sad that my Liberal colleagues in our coalition cannot support the proposal of the majority of that Committee. I have seen many computer runs which show that there is no advantage or disadvantage to any of the major parties as a result of an increase in the size of Parliament. I think it is quite wrong for anybody to make assessments that such an increase will favour either the Labor Party or the National Party or that it will disadvantage the Liberal Party. It is quite wrong to make those assessments because the only figures that I have seen do not bear out that argument. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) made reference to the likely hung Senate if 12 senators are elected from each of the States. Of course, since 1958 only on four occasions have we not had a hung Senate. In fact, with a proportional representation system of voting, the chances of a hung senate in any event are very likely. I do not think that in this day and age we will ever stop splinter parties from contesting the Senate unless we put prohibitive deposits upon them. At each election for the Senate, we have seen that the number of candidates and parties presenting themselves seem to continue to grow. This Bill provides for 23 additional members for the House of Representatives and 12 more senators to represent the Australian people in the Parliament. There has been no real increase in representation in the Federal Parliament since 1949 . In those 35 years the population of this country has nearly doubled and the workload on people in this Parliament has multiplied many times. It is inevitable that there will always be public opposition to this type of proposition. But I take the view, as has the Leader of the National Party, that when honourable members think something is right for the government and proper administration of this country, there is an obligation upon them to press that point of view, and to press it here. The people cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect the Parliament to deal satisfactorily with the enormously increased and more diverse work load with the same real number of Federal parliamentary members that represented them in 1949. As I said earlier, since 1949 our population has doubled and the issues and the work load of this place have multiplied and become more diverse. In recent years senators and members have had some increase in staff and facilities. There are some who advocate more staff and better travel arrangements for parliamentary members and their staff as an alternative to increasing the size of this Parliament. Although there are grounds for some additional assistance-I do not deny that, because members do tell me of their problems-the increase in staff should be no alternative to increasing the numbers of elected representatives. To surround elected representatives with staff will not provide better representation. Staff are not elected by the people; they are not answerable to the people. It is often claimed by people outside this place that the Government has become far too bureacratic. I believe that there is more than a vestige of truth in the assertion. Simply to add further staff to the offices of members and senators would only enhance the bureaucratic system in this country. In any event, it may be no less costly to taxpayers simply to increase staff members rather than increase the numbers of elected members of this House and to increase the number of senators by 12. Since the size of the Parliament was last increased there has been an increase of approximately 70 per cent in the number of ministries. The pool of members and senators from which the executive of the Government and the Opposition are to be drawn has not grown to the same extent. It is obvious that a larger pool from which to select the Executive should improve the range of talent in ministries. No one can deny that the pressures faced by the Parliament and the issues imposed on parliamentary members are more extensive than they were in 1949. Since that time there has been a growing involvement of this Parliament in such matters as ethnic affairs and environmental issues. Whoever heard of the word 'environment' in 1949? There has been far more interest and involvement in Aboriginal affairs and so on. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) listed a range of matters that have become features of the responsibility of this place since 1949. I shall mention some of them. They are: Aboriginal affairs; uniform legislation such as company law; education; conservation and the national heritage; family law; the status of women; ethnic affairs; child care; tourism; small business; sport and cultural affairs; federal affairs and local government; and electronic communications matters such as the satellite about which a statement was made today. It is all very well to say that we need smaller government. I think it is a sound argument. I think government has become too big. Does any political party or any politician really believe that we can retreat from such issues as women's affairs? Do we think the women of Australia will allow that to happen? Do we think the greenies around this country will allow the Parliament to absolve itself from the responsibilities of our heritage? Not one bit! We have responsibilities that were undreamed of in 1900 and in 1949. Those responsibilities in a complex, modern society will not get any easier. The parliamentary committee system has grown enormously to cope with these affairs and will continue to do so. For instance, what has happened in the Senate in the last 20 years? It more than doubled in size. There are those who say 'What a pity,' but the fact is that it has happened. I do not think any senator would be prepared to see the abolition of any Senate committees. A larger parliament would enable more adequate staffing of the entrenched parliamentary committee system. There is no doubt that the committee system is here to stay. It is unlikely to diminish; it will probably become more extensive . An enlarged parliament, of course, would give greater oversight of the Executive, increase the importance of the back bench and help to achieve a better balance between the Executive and the Parliament. I believe that a moderate increase in the number of senators and members, which is what we are talking about, as provided in this legislation will make for better and more efficient government. I believe that it will give electors more leverage and say in the actions of government. The average House of Representatives electoral enrolment rose from 39,948 in 1949 to 74,989 in 1983. Indeed in some electorates the increase has been far greater. The enrolment in the electorate of the right honourable member for Richmond increased by 105 per cent since 1958. In 1969 there was an enrolment of 45,104 in the electorate of Gwydir, the electorate I am proud to represent. On 4 February 1983 there were no fewer than 73,111 electors as against 45,104 in 1969 . However, in 1969 the electorate covered 77,000 square kilometres. Today the area of the electorate of Gwydir happens to be 242,672 square kilometres and the enrolment has increased by 62 per cent. Therefore, in the 14 years I have been a member of this House not only has the enrolment of the electorate of Gwydir increased but also its area has increased by 312 per cent. The problems for the constituents-forget about the ruddy member-in such a large electorate are enormous indeed. There are over 100 different towns and communities, including one city, 20 local government authorities and no less than six State electorates either in whole or in part within the boundary of the electorate. Indeed, New South Wales has lost four electorates since 1949, falling from 47 to 43, despite an increase of 70 per cent in the number of voters. Since the 1968 redistribution we have seen the complete elimination of two rural electorates in western New South Wales, namely, the old Darling electorate and the electorate of Lawson. Today, three Federal members represent 70 per cent more voters than five federal members did in 1949 and, indeed, in 1968. Mr Howard —They are very good members though, Ralph. Mr HUNT —They are good members, but do not expect too much of them, or of their constituents. It is very important not to do that; that is what this discussion is all about. I do not believe this situation represents a fair go for the people living in rural electorates. The failure to increase the size of the House of Representatives, the reduction in the tolerance for redistributions from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, the removal of area and sparsity of population provisions from the former Electoral Act and the requirement for greater emphasis to be given to rates of population growth have all ensured the elimination of country electorates and the rapid growth in the areas of those which are retained. This Bill will at least arrest the rate at which this process was accelerating and an undesirable trend in the size of rural electorates. That is very important; the constituents are important people. Today most political parties and almost all political analyists support the elusive concept of one vote, one value. Indeed in 1976 the Liberal-Country Party Federal Government amended the Electoral Act to provide for more even electorates. In so doing the 20 per cent tolerance was reduced to 10 per cent, ' the area and sparsity of population' provisions were removed from the Act and the 'area' provision was replaced by the so-called 5,000 square kilometre provision supposedly designed to ensure that no rural electorate would have more voters than the lowest enrolment in a metropolitan electorate. Seven years on, let us look briefly at what happened to the enrolments of rural electorates in New South Wales. This is very interesting. The State average enrolment as at 4 February 1983 was 75,536 yet the rural electorates averaged 77,327 electors. The 30 metropolitan electorates averaged 74,608 electors- Mr Fisher —The biggest? Mr HUNT —No, they are the smallest. Therefore, on average the rural electorates were 2.8 per cent above the average while the metropolitan electorates were 1.23 per cent below the State average. Mr Goodluck —You blokes are twice as good. Mr HUNT —We take that for granted. Let us look at what happened to the inner metropolitan electorates. On 4 February they had only 70,683 electors while the average bush electorate had 77,327 electors. I compare the enrolment of my electorate with that of the inner metropolitan electorate of Grayndler, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) having spoken just before me. The electorate of Grayndler, with only 66,474 voters covering an area of only 28 square kilometres, compares with the Gwydir enrolment of 73,111 voters covering 242,672 square kilometres. So let nobody talk of rural bias or rural gerrymander . It just does not exist. Indeed, seven years after the redistribution only one State, Victoria, is within cooee of the 10 per cent tolerance below the State quota. It is about 5 per cent below the quota. If the Parliament is really serious about the concept of one vote one value, it should support this legislation. I mention Tasmania, although I do not speak against it. Tasmania has five representatives here. I think it would be good if it had 10, but it is constitutionally required to have five. It has quality people. The average Tasmanian electorate has 56,493 electors while the South Australian average enrolment is 80,000. So there is a 40 per cent disparity between those two States. This proposal cuts the average enrolment by 50 per cent, bringing the variation from 40 per cent to 20 per cent. If we are consistent about the one vote one value concept it will bring the system more into line with the objectives of all political parties. The National Party has had to suffer. It has had to come down the track to that position. I think that is a very important point to make. There are those who argue: 'Yes, there is a case for increasing the size of the House of Representatives but not the Senate'. It is argued that this can be achieved by breaking the constitutional nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Such people go on to say: 'I will support a Yes vote in a referendum to achieve this objective'. But there is no way in which such a vote would ever be carried, for the reasons I have stressed. There are those who argue that now is not the time-in the next decade, yes, but not now. That argument is a limp one, in my view, when most people in this place acknowledge that the work load has multiplied and there is a case for a moderate increase in representation. I think we should face up to the fact that what is needed to improve the Parliament is not only an improvement in the quality and the facilities of parliamentarians but also a moderate increase in the number of members. The expectation of the electorate and the duties of parliamentarians have grown tremendously since 1949. Every member of this House is supposed not only to be a protector of the rights of his constituents but also to be on top of new legislation and public demands and to participate in policy formulation. Surely now, a time of a major review of the electoral laws and the building of a new Parliament House, is the time to be setting not only the legislative framework for the way representatives are elected but also the numbers to be elected to serve the interests of this nation into the next century and beyond. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.04) —I rise to join the debate in its dying moments and to speak briefly, but I hope feelingly, to the men and women of Australia who are listening to it. The one million Australians who are listening to the debate , I think, are entitled to hear in calm and rational terms an outline of what is before this Parliament and what we are debating tonight. The men and women of Australia should know that the legislation which is before us, which will be known as the Representation Act 1983, has been brought into this Parliament by the Hawke socialist Government. It is legislation without any mandate whatever. It is legislation which is wrong in principle and wrong in politics. It is legislation which, if implemented, will cost the taxpayers of Australia an extra $10m per annum and produce an extra 35 members of the Federal Parliament. I have to cast my mind back to the Sydney Opera House when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke )-- Dr Klugman —I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Denison has obviously calculated a $70,000 per month car content for every one of those members and that applies only to him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member-- Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Prospect demeans this place and behaves like the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins). Shame on him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison! The Chair is still in the process of trying to rule on the point of order. I warn the honourable member for Prospect that his was a frivolous point of order. I invite him not to make any such points of order. Mr HODGMAN —I will not do anything further than invite the honourable member for Prospect to repeat his comments outside the House. I now say, putting it on the line, that the people of Australia are entitled to know that there are people in this Parliament, in the Government-the honourable member for Fremantle and the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman)-who are prepared to do anything they can to try to silence me. They will fail, as those who have tried to silence me during my 16 years in politics, State and Federal, have failed. Let us have it right out in the open. Before the House tonight is legislation for which the Government has no mandate. Did the Prime Minister stand up at the Sydney Opera House and say: 'If I become Prime Minister of Australia I will bring in legislation which will create 35 new members of the Federal Parliament' ? How many votes do honourable members think he would have lost if he had stood up and said that he would give the people of Australia an extra 23 members of the House of Representatives and an extra 12 senators? How many votes do honourable members think the Prime Minister would have lost if he had stood in front of the people of Australia at the Sydney Opera House and said: 'It will cost you an extra $10m a year'? How many votes do honourable members think he would have lost if he had said: 'Add to that the cost of the extra staff, travel expenses and so on'? I suggest to honourable members that the Prime Minister would not be Prime Minister today if he had put that proposal forward. The legislation is wrong in principle and it is wrong in politics. Let me deal with the principle aspect first. I ask: Where is the consensus of which the Hawke socialist Government boasts when 76 per cent of Australians are dead against the legislation that is before us today in this Parliament? Where is the consensus when the Government comes into this Parliament with a mandate of 13 per cent of the Australian electorate? I have yet to find one single constituent of Denison who thinks that there should be more members of the Federal Parliament. I served as a member of the State Parliament for eight years. I have served eight years as a member of the Federal Parliament. If honourable members opposite can tell me the people out there who believe we should be increasing the number of members of the Federal Parliament I would like to know their names and addresses. They must be as scarce, as rare, as hens' teeth. Let us get right down to the issue. The Government says that it is a government for all Australians. It says it is a government of consensus. What sort of a consensus does it get out of 13 per cent? With the greatest of respect to my coalition colleagues, whose views I respect-they are put forward with great sincerity-I have to say that there is no mandate. The legislation is wrong in principle and it is wrong in politics. Why is it wrong in politics? I will tell the Government why it is wrong in politics. It is my firm belief-these figures may not be agreed to by some people but this is the way I see it-that the effect of the increase in the House of Representatives will be to increase the number of seats held by the Australian Labor Party. I believe the principal objective of this side of politics is to get the socialists out of office at the earliest possible opportunity. I happen to think that the present Government is bad for Australia. I happen to think that this country cannot afford to have this Government in power for any more than one term. Five years ago I made two predictions. One was that one day Robert James Lee Hawke would become Prime Minister of Australia. That has come true. My second prediction was that he would be Prime Minister of Australia for one term. Whether honourable members believe it or not, I think it is timely to remind the people of Australia that all that is required to remove the Hon. Robert James Lee Hawke from the Lodge and to insert the Hon. Andrew Sharp Peacock into the Lodge is a swing of 2.3 per cent and a recapture of some 13 seats. Surely that is what we, the anti-socialist forces in this Parliament, must make our No. 1 objective. Rightly or wrongly, I have to believe that if 23 new seats are created in this Federal Parliament 14 of them will go to the Australian Labor Party. The balance will go to the anti-socialists. What will happen with regard to the Senate? A situation will be created in the Senate in which it will be impossible for the next decade, I suggest, for a government to have a majority in that House. Let us be quite clear what we are about to do. Honourable members do not have to take my word for it. Let them look at the words in 1967 of the Hon. Harold Holt and of the Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam. On this issue they were absolutely unanimous. They said that it would not be possible for a government to have a majority in the Senate. The statistics demonstrate overwhelmingly that there will be a hung Senate in control of this great country for the next decade at least if this legislation goes through. I say with respect to all involved in this debate: Think very carefully on the matter. The prize of power, the prize of the Lodge, rests in this Parliament in the House of Representatives. What sort of government will we have in this country if it is frustrated by the Senate for the next decade? I notice that honourable members opposite are not laughing at me. I know and they know that the Labor Party is divided on this. There are within the ranks of the Australian Labor Party people who are very concerned about this legislation, first, because there is no mandate for it; secondly, because it is wrong in principle; and, thirdly, because it is wrong politically. Let me say why it is wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle for this reason: It was not thought up originally by members of parliament. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock ) made that quite clear in a devastating speech. He proved beyond any doubt that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) did not propose this. The honourable member for Boothby said that this should be put to the Committee so that it could express its view and that it should be put to the people of Australia so that they could come before the Committee. What happened? This is why it is so shamefully wrong in principle. The numbers men in the parties got together and came up with a result which now will demonstrate to the people of Australia the way in which they made their calculations, because the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats will oppose this legislation and the Labor Party and the National Party will support it. This is wrong in principle. It is a matter of very profound regret that on a matter as important as this, without any mandate at all and without any approval from the people, we are going to force the men and women of Australia, the taxpayers of this country, to accept more members of parliament. There was no mandate for it and frankly 76 per cent of people are against it. A combination of circumstances led to a meeting of the minds. Quite frankly, I am absolutely shattered that this legislation can go through the Parliament at this hour of the night. If it goes through and if it is passed in the Senate the people of Australia will rightly wreak their vengeance on those who have forced this upon them. They do not want more members of parliament and they do not want legislation like this at a time of national economic recession. I appeal to the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), as one of the most intelligent and reasonable members of the Hawke socialist Government, to think again and to pull this legislation out because, quite frankly, it is wrong for Australia, it is wrong for this Parliament and it is wrong for the anti-socialist forces of this nation. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(10.14) —in reply -I want to get back to the main point of this debate. It was disappointing that we were not able to extract from the contributions of most of the spokesmen from the Liberal Party the essentials of this debate, that is, the internal workings of the Parliament, the relationship between the Parliament and the Executive and the times at which it is appropriate to adjust the sizes of the Houses of Parliament. I will set at rest the mind of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who has just spoken, about the political benefit of this legislation. He said that were we on this side, on 1983 figures, to receive 14 and the other side nine of the 23 proposed new seats, that would merely reflect the current balance in the Parliament of 75 to 50, which would be again reflected in the opposite direction were we to have the same set of votes polled in 1980 as was polled in 1983. That, in fact, is not the case. In fact, on going through this exercise-and I have looked at it very closely-the probability is that the bulk of these 23 seats will be won by the coalition. That is because the coalition is slightly under-represented for the percentage of votes polled in Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland and we are slightly under- represented in New South Wales. In fact, on the basis of the last set of votes we would have seen a Labor Government with a two or three seat less majority than it has at the moment in this House. However, it all depends on how one does the calculation. At the very worst all that would have been replicated in the new seats would have been the vote that had been received by the two parties, and probably the coalition parties would have done slightly better in an expanded parliament. This is one of those occasions on which a government is pressed to address a matter in principle. It must be said that the Government has taken advantage of the fact that at least some members of the Opposition are prepared to go along with it early in its term in order to make a decision which will create a set-up in Parliament which will last for another 30 years. Remember, we are not discussing this from the point of view of what is going to happen next year. We are not trying to get an extra 35 members next year and another 35 members the year after that. If this Bill goes through nobody is going to come back and ask for an increase in the size of this House until well after the turn of the century. We are not discussing here the current economic circumstances. We are discussing the shape of the Parliament for the next 30 years. It really would be nice if just once in this place people were prepared to discuss things sensibly and not seek short term advantage. The question of the nexus referendum has been mentioned today and I think it needs to be taken up. How we are going to interpret this matter is relevant to this discussion. There is no question in my mind that one of the reasons why the nexus referendum proposal was defeated was, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, because in certain parts of the country an argument against an increased number of members was made, and made effectively. It also needs to be said that the contrary argument was put by himself, by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) and by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party at the time; that if one did not do that then when the pressure comes for an increase in the size of the Parliament, the method we are going through will be the method that is required. Therefore, at least it could be said that the people have made a judgment and said: 'Well, if that is the way you want it, that is the way it will be done'. However, another factor was involved. Another argument against the nexus referendum was based on State rights. It is an argument with which I do not agree but it is an argument that had very considerable saliency in the nexus debate in my home State of Western Australia. I do not expect a Leader of the Opposition who comes from Victoria, or even, for that matter, a Leader of the National Party who comes from New South Wales, even though he is supporting us, fully to comprehend that. But I can assure the House, as somebody who has lived and worked in the Western Australian political system for a very long time, that it does not take very much to get a State rights argument going in Western Australia. One has no show of carrying a referendum at all if that can be pinned onto a referendum proposal. The States' rights argument was made that if one reduces the effectiveness and power of the Senate one is going to place oneself in a situation in which the small States will be knocked over. This was a factor in that debate. I do not think anyone who knows anything about Western Australian politics would dare get up in this House and disagree with me on this point. There is another bogus element in the Opposition's argument in relation to the nexus referendum. There was an anticipation at that time of a need to increase incrementally the House of Representatives. This was in 1967-15 years ago. There was not a thought in the mind of the Government of the day that the time had come when perhaps it ought, 20 years after the last redistribution or the last increase in the size of the Parliament, to start to increase incrementally the House of Representatives. This is what the then Government thought 15 years ago. It is therefore not a little surprising that the Government and some members of the Opposition are coming to the conclusion that perhaps the problem ought now to be addressed. Another element of the Liberal Party's opposition to this measure, the question of the overservicing of the electorate by an excessive number of members of parliament, is also bogus. I have not heard a word of criticism in this place from any member of the Opposition on the decision by the Northern Territory Government to increase the size of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly by some six seats to 25 seats at an average of about 2,000 electors a seat. That is the problem. It is not that the Federal Parliament is over-represented. The problem in this country is an absence of restraint in some of the smaller assemblies. Let it not be forgotten that every member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, representing 2,000 people, receives the same salary as a member of this Parliament. If that is the concern that members of the other side have, perhaps they should rock on down to the Northern Territory over the next few weeks-it is a pretty pertinent time-and have a word or two to their colleagues about knocking off half a dozen of their members who are funded by the general Australian taxpayer. At the very least members of the Liberal Party Opposition are highly selective in the positions they are prepared to put forward when they approve or otherwise increases in the Parliament. There is an appropriate comparision. The comparison by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) was drawn between ourselves and the United States. The United States has 200 million people. Obviously, its members represent a larger number of people than those in a country with about 15 million people. I also remind honourable members that a minimal number of staff for a member of the Congress in the United States is 14 and some senators in the United States have over 100 members on their staff. Mr Anthony —A junior congressman has 30. Mr BEAZLEY —I am out of date. I have been corrected by the Leader of the National Party on that point. A junior congressman has 30 members of staff. Is it any surprise that he can effectively represent a substantially greater number of people than a representative in Australia? There is a relevant comparison on the North American continent and that is the Canadian Parliament. Canada is roughly equivalent to Australia in size, distance and population. It is roughly equivalent to us in systems. We have six states, they have 11 provinces. It is a rough equivalent in terms of internal systems. Its provinces have legislative assemblies of a greater size than our State assemblies. The average size of a constituency in the Canadian House of Commons is 56,000 people. When this proposal goes through the average size of an electorate in Australia will be reduced from 74,000 to 63,000. There is a direct comparison in the size of the houses but the Canadian House of Commons, no doubt, will well and truly within the next 20 or 30 years make adjustments in its number of representatives. We will not be making adjustments because this Parliament will not change in size during that time. The argument has been presented that we should have regard to the situation of a hung Senate. Let us not forget that since the referendum in 1967 when people were warned of the consequences of a hung Senate we have had the greatest crisis that has ever occurred in relationships between the Senate and the House of Representatives. That occurred with a Senate constructed on the basis of the current electoral system, a Senate conducted on the current distribution. It seems to me that what we ought to be concerned about in this House is not so much what will be the balance of power in the Senate. That is clearly ephemeral. We will never get a situation in which the Senate exactly replicates what happens in the House. Even though it is not a State House, as the honourable member for Boothby correctly pointed out, it is distributed on a State basis. It is perfectly possible for one party to poll 65 per cent of the vote in New South Wales and run in a suitable number of senators and for that result to be completely negated, despite that party winning government, by a similar sort of vote the other way in Western Australia that produces, nevertheless, the same number of senators. That problem will be with us all the time. We have to address the question of Senate powers and the correct relationship between the House of Representatives and the Senate. I would not hold my breath for any conclusion on that subject; nevertheless, it is perhaps a subject that ought to be addressed more seriously than it has been. The Commonwealth Parliament has been responding to the demands of people for increased areas of responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in a very fiery speech suggested that we reduce the powers and the role of the Commonwealth Government. He was a member for most of seven years of a government that presided over very substantial increases in those powers. I thought he might have displayed a certain amount of embarrassment in changing his line or at least his direction in a period of seven months, but that was not to be. I want to know what powers honourable members opposite want to see reduced. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) named a number of areas in which people were deeply concerned. What non-involvement in the area of social security do honourable members opposite want to see on the part of the Commonwealth? I have a fair idea what non-involvement they want to see from the Commonwealth in the area of environment. Nevertheless it has to be said that, whether we or honourable members opposite are in government, those questions will have to be addressed by the Commonwealth Parliament. They will not evade them. Do they want non-involvement in the area of education? That was quintessentially an area of States rights. Will honourable members opposite suggest to us now that we ought to pull out of the area of state assistance, for example, to non-government schools and the very substantial panoply of administration which was set up to do that? I would not be surprised if they suggested that because the then Opposition opposed to the death the propositions on increasing state aid to private schools which were put up by the Whitlam Government and which saved the Catholic parochial schools system in this country . In that case the National Party at least dragged the Liberal Party to its senses and allowed that legislation to go through, as it is now trying to drag the Liberal Party to its senses. The situation then was that the Whitlam Government intervened massively in that area, and honourable members opposite will not come into this place and tell us that we ought to pull out of it. They would not dare. In regard to those areas of Commonwealth responsibility about which honourable members opposite piously get up here and preach and say that we ought to be reducing, when push comes to shove they will be well and truly into that if they ever get back into goverment. The situation is that members' responsibilities have increased. Some 1.2 million people for whom we are responsible as members are not represented in the electoral system because they do not have a vote. Do we kick them out of our offices when they come in? Of course we do not. We look after their needs as we look after everyone else's needs. The areas of Commonwealth responsibility have increased very dramatically over the years. They will not be pegged back. Members of parliament will continue to be the effective social workers that they have been in the past. What they will not be is effective members of parliament. They will not be people who are able to contribute to legislation, they will not be people who will be able to staff committee systems, because there will not be enough of them to do it. There will not be enough to provide a sufficient pool for the executive. Then the control of the Executive will go out the window as more people come into the constituencies. We have approached this matter in a serious fashion. We have approached it conscious of the fact that some political damage is to be accrued in putting forward these proposals. We see no party advantage in it nor do we see any Executive advantage at all for the Government. We see some advantage for a decent parliament. I suppose we are at least mindful of the fact that it is early in the life of this Parliament, that a new parliament building is being created, and that is an appropriate time to act. We consider ourselves to be acting for the next 30 years, not for any change in the economic circumstances over the next year or two. The proposals to change the Parliament will last for the next 30 years. It is a proposition which took some courage for the Government to put forward, and at least that has been appreciated in some areas of the Opposition, if not in others. Those members of the Opposition who, like ourselves, support the concept will be the beneficiaries by being able to sit in a place which is more competent to deal with the problems of the people we seek to represent. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Aderman, A. E. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Katter, R. C.Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Braithwate, R. A. Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Ian McGauran, P. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. McVeigh, D. T.Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cowan, D. B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, F. L.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fisher, P. S. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Sinclair, I. McC.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Aldred, K. J. Hall, SteeleAndrew, J. N. Hawker, D. P. M.Burr, M. A. Hodgman, W. M.Cadman, A. G. Howard, J. W.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. (Teller)Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Street, A. A.Goodluck, B. J. White, P. N. D.Groom, R. J. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It being past 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Beazley-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(10.41) —The Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill for the re- establishment of an Inter-State Commission is being brought into this place at the moment to revive a Bill that was passed by the Parliament in 1975. That piece of legislation, while it was passed by both Houses of Parliament, was never put into effect because it was not proclaimed. The present Government has now proclaimed that piece of legislation and is making certain amendments to the Act to make it appropriate for present conditions. While I support the concept of an Inter-State Commission Bill, I have grave reservations that the 1975 legislation, coupled with the amendments that are being put to the House tonight , do not perform the function that I would like to see an Inter-State Commission perform. I feel that the Inter-State Commission, as it is being conceived at the moment by the legislation, would really be something of a toothless tiger. The Inter-State Commission, as it was conceived by the Constitution, was supposed to be a body of people within the Australian scene that would have the powers to be able to regulate interstate transport and connections between the various States. The Inter-State Commission was provided for in the Constitution in sections 101 to 105. Section 101 states: There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder. As I undersand that section of the Constitution, the prime purpose of an Inter- State Commission is to ensure a free flow of trade and commerce between the various States. I am sure that if a proposition for that purpose were put to the Parliament, it could be unanimously agreed to. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation does not put forward the proposition for an Inter-State Commission that will ensure a free flow of trade and commerce between the States. Very notable matters of trade and commerce have not been included in this Bill and I will refer to those a little later. Firstly, the Inter-State Commission was first established in 1912. It operated for seven years. While I believe that the Inter-State Commission had its successes during that period it also had its shortcomings. The major shortcoming which seemed to me to be again a contravention of the intent of the Constitution was that, as a result of the decision by the Hight Court of Australia in 1915 in a case known as the Wheat Case which involved the Commonwealth of Australia versus the State of New South Wales, the High Court ruled that, in fact, the Inter-State Commission could not exercise judicial functions. That to me seemed to be a contravention of the Constitution. The Parliament of the day, rather than simply amending the legislation to give the Inter-State Commission the powers that it obviously needed, simply allowed the Inter-State Commission to lapse. It was not until the 1975 legislation that the idea of an Inter-State Commission was again revived. Coming from Tasmania we know what it is like to be debarred from the use of interstate transport connections. We, in Tasmania, rely very heavily on the interstate transport connections, particularly the sea lane connections and the air services. They are our only forms of connection with the other States of Australia. It worries me greatly that this Bill will do nothing whatever to ensure that there is an unhindered flow of both shipping and air services between Tasmania and the other States of the Commonwealth. This was most certainly recognised by Senator Wright when the previous legislation went before the Senate in 1975. The then Senator Wright, in his contribution to the 1975 debate, proposed certain amendments to the Bill which was before the Parliament at that time. One of the proposed amendments stated in part: (i) The Commission may at any time declare that the regular carrying on of any such service is urgent; either in respect of a particular place or generally. (ii) During a period of 60 days after such declaration it shall be unlawful for any person, company or union to take part in any strike or lockout interrupting such services; The intent of Senator Wright's amendments was to ensure that there was an unhindered flow of transport services between Tasmania and the other States of the Commonwealth. That has not been addressed by the 1975 legislation or by the amendments that we have before us at the moment. I believe that, if the Inter- State Commission is to be effective, it must have the powers to ensure that there cannot be a disruption to trade and commerce of a State which relies heavily on transport services in order to conduct that trade and commerce. We are conscious, in Tasmania, of the regular disruptions to our trade and commerce as a result of strikes and other industrial actions that disrupt our transport services. I believe that one of the prime functions of the Inter-State Commission should be to ensure that those transport services are not hindered by industrial or any other form of disruption so that trade and commerce can be carried on without any disruption. I believe that that was also part of the intent of section 92 of the Constitution and that, in order to ensure that the effects of section 92 were properly carried out, our founding fathers proposed that there should be an Inter-State Commission. I suggest to the Government that it look again at the 1975 legislation and that it look again at the powers that the Commission should have so as to ensure that the Commission has the powers to regulate against any disruption whether for industrial reasons or for any other purposes, thereby ensuring that there is no disruption to interstate transport. I am also disappointed at the fact that this Commission is being given investigative powers only and, in fact, is not being given regulatory powers at all. All this Commission can do is to investigate particular matters and report those matters to the Government. It is then up to the Government to determine how it should respond. That does nothing to give any guarantee to Tasmania or to any other State that there will be a free flow of trade and commerce through the transport system. The other thing that worries me about this legislation is that air passenger services are specifically excluded from the functions of the Commission. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), in a media release about the Commission, said: It is the Government's intention that the operations of the 1981 Airlines Agreement and the Independent Air Fares Committee will be outside the ambit of the Commission. I ask why air passenger services are being specifically excluded from the authority of the Inter-State Commission. Because of the changes in technology and the changes to our transport systems, transport between States at the moment is mainly through the air system and air freight and air passenger services, or the road system, particularly the road freight system. Yet one of the major forms of interstate transport, the air passenger services, is specifically excluded from the function and the role of the Inter-State Commission. I cannot understand why that is so. I can only come to the conclusion that the Government has in mind some way in which to give protection to the two air line agreement and particularly to give some form of favour to the existing airline services at the expense of other air freighter and air passenger services whch may at some time in the future wish to enter into competition with the existing operators. I strongly suggest to the Government that it look again at the role of the Commission so as to allow the air passenger services to come under the ambit of the Inter-State Commission. One other matter that worries me is the role of road freighting. The Minister has not made any mention of the role that the Inter-State Commission will have in regard to road freighting. Knowing the Minister's interest in road freighting , I am concerned that the Inter-State Commission will be used as a vehicle to retard the growth of the road freight industry in some way. I do not know what the Minister has in mind, but that is my fear. I hope that those fears are unfounded. I mention one other matter in the brief time available to me. In introducing these amendments to the Inter-State Commission Act the Minister very purposefully said in his second reading speech that the first function of the Inter-State Commission would be to review and to investigate the function and the role of the Tasmanian freight equalisation services. That statement has given rise to grave fears in Tasmania that, in fact, what the Government has in mind is to dispense entirely with the Tasmanian freight equalisation services and that the Inter-State Commission is simply to be used as a vehicle to justify a decision that the Government has already taken. I remind the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister that the policy statement by the Prime Minister both during and since the election campaign that a Labor government would do nothing to tamper with the Tasmanian freight equalisation services was very purposeful. I can assure the Minister that if that promise is broken and the Tasmanian freight equalisation service is in any way tampered with, there will be a tremendous outcry from the people of Tasmania . That scheme has done much to allow Tasmanian industry, both primary and secondary, to develop. It is the linchpin that has allowed employment opportunities to be maintained in Tasmania. Tasmanians have given great credit to the Fraser Government for its introduction. Without that scheme there would be a tremendous downturn in the industrial prospects for both our primary and secondary industries, which would have an obvious impact in undermining employment opportunities in that State. I give my support to the introduction of an interstate commission because I think it is a step in the right direction to have proper regulation of interstate transport services, but I do detect some weaknesses in the present legislation. I ask the Government to tighten up its Bill, in particular to include air passenger services, and also to give the Commission a regulatory function so that it will have disciplinary powers over the unions in their industrial actions or any other actions that may disrupt interstate transport. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(10.56) —Whenever a debate on transport legislation comes before this House it has become par for the course for the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), to propose the closure or scrapping of one of the Northern Territory's transport links. I notice that he is not here this evening while we debate this important piece of transport legislation, the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill. However, in September this year he came into the chamber and told honourable members that the Labor Government should not spend the $5m we have allocated for the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and that he does not want any more design work done on that railway for the time being. It follows that he does not want the Government to proceed with that project at all. He also came in here last week and told us proudly that the Liberal-National Party if it ever manages to get back into government would disband the Australian National Line. It follows from that that he and his Party want to scrap the Darwin-east coast shipping service. Having heard two of his proposals about two of the Territory's transport links, I approach transport debates in this House with some degree of concern and curiosity-concern because I just wonder what he proposes for our other two links, road and air, and curiosity as to how it is that the Opposition parties retain him as the shadow Minister for Transport when he obviously wants to close down the whole of the Australian transport system. Nonetheless, in relation to the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill-as I said , I notice that the shadow Minister for Transport is not here-I have these comments to make: Australia can lay claim to thousands of miles of highways, railway lines, air routes and sea lanes. Our country is about the same size as the United States of America, yet we have a fraction of the population with which to service this vast network. At the same time most of Australia's population is concentrated in the major mainland capital cities and most of Australia's land mass is very sparsely populated. It is therefore not surprising that the transport sector accounts for $1 for every $10 of gross national expenditure. Freight is a very significant part of our cost of living. For example, estimates suggest that in the Northern Territory freight costs push the cost of living up by between 15 and 20 per cent. Concern about the level of the freight component on goods has led to inquiries being established by both this Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government. I will come back to the national inquiry in a minute. While I am sure that our founding fathers did not foresee this growth in the size of our transport systems over the past 80 years, nevertheless they did include in the Constitution provisions for the establishment of an Inter-State Commission. The inclusion of these provisions during the 1890s demonstrates how important transport must have been in the economy even then. I must say it surprises me to learn that although the Inter-State Commission Act received bipartisan support in 1975 the former coalition Government neglected to take any action to bring it into effect. This Labor Government in its first year of office has moved to bring the Inter-State Commission Act into effect and to make the amendments covered by this Bill tonight. One of the first tasks of the Commission will be to review the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, and I am sure that honourable members from Tasmania will be pleased to hear that. I turn to an unfortunate limitation of the Inter-State Commission, and that limitation is that the Commission will not cover Territory-State transport links , specifically trade between the Northern Territory and a State. The Northern Territory accounts for one-sixth of Australian land mass. It is one of the most sparsely populated areas of this sparsely populated country. The Northern Territory accounts for thousands of kilometres of Australian roads, air routes, sea lanes and a few hundred kilometres of railway line. Section 101 of the Constitution provides: There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary- The operative word is 'State'. I am aware that the consideration of that section has led to its interpretation as being that it does not apply to Territory-State trade. I refer specifically to the case of Morgan v. the Commonwealth in 1947 where it was held: The other associated sections consist of provisions all of which either define, or limit in some way, the exercise of the power of the Commonwealth Parliament in relation to trade and commerce-a power which, as already stated, is derived from s. 51 (i) of the Constitution and is therefore limited to inter-State and foreign trade and commerce. It was further held: In s.101, which prescribes the powers of the Inter-State Commission, the reference to 'the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce , and of all laws made thereunder' is most obviously a reference to legislation enacted under s.51 (1). I concede that, on the face of it, that interpretation limits the application of section 101 to powers under section 51 (1) of the Constitution which precludes Territory-State trade. However, section 92 of the Constitution has been interpreted in relation to State and Territory trade. There is an analogy between that section and a proposal I have about making this Inter-State Commission legislation apply to the Northern Territory. Section 122 of the Constitution provides that: The parliament may make laws for the Government of any territory- I suggest that it should be possible under section 122 for the Commonwealth Parliament to adopt a law in exactly the same terms as this Inter-State Commission legislation to apply to the Northern Territory. The question is then whether that legislation binds Territory-State trade outside the Territory. I suggest that it does. Section 49 of the Commonwealth Northern Territory (Self- Government) Act provides: Trade, commerce and intercourse between the Territory and the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation shall be absolutely free. That is in exactly the same terms as the old section 10 of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act and also in the same terms as section 92 of the Constitution. That particular section was considered in a case of Lamshed v. Lake. The question being considered in that case was whether section 10 of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act applied to a journey between the Northern Territory and South Australia so as to overcome South Australian law which prohibited that journey in South Australia without a licence. The Court held that the provisions of section 10 of the Northern Territory (Administration ) Act applied to overcome the South Australian law requiring that journey to be held with a South Australian licence. In other words, applying that to the situation with the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill, it is my contention that it should be possible to legislate in exactly the same form as this Bill does to apply to the Northern Territory and particularly to trade and transport links between the Northern Territory and the States with that legislation being made under section 122 of the Constitution. I would suggest that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) give some consideration to that because if the Inter-State Commission is not able to operate on a national basis then it can hardly, I suggest, operate effectively. If one-sixth of the land mass of Australia is excluded from its operation as well as a large part of Australia's transport links, including rail, air and sea, then obviously it is hampered in its operation. For the enlightenment of the shadow Minister for Transport, who is still absent , I indicate that it was because of this limitation on the operation of section 101 that the national road freight inquiry should have been established independent of the Inter-State Commission. Any person with any knowledge of the limitations of the Inter-State Commission-one would expect the shadow Minister for Transport to have such knowledge-would have known that. The second reason, of course, was the matter of urgency because the Inter-State Commission Act was not in force at the time we decided to set up the national road freight inquiry. It was considered that it was necessary to set up that inquiry urgently. We were pressured by the State to do that. The Minister quite rightly acceded to their request. The limitations that I have mentioned are not of the Minister's making. They are of the making of the people who originally formed the Constitution. Putting that aside, I am very happy to support this Bill because it will do a lot to ensure that Australia has a rational, efficient and-subject to the limitations I have mentioned-national transport system as well as a means of investigating that system when it is found lacking. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.07) —This legislation reminds me of the cocky farmer who goes along to his bank manager at a time of need and asks for additional funds. Of course, when he is in need the bank manager says no. But when the season is good the bank manager wants to lend a lot of money. This legislation reminds me exactly of that situation. The Inter-State Commission Bill deals with transport between States other than the area of transport covered by the two airline policy. The Inter-State Commission will act as an ongoing royal commission to look at areas relating to transport, which could include commerce, trade, financial support and terms of financial support by States, local governments and other authorities. It could look at government subsidies, government programs of support for transport, and industrial relations. It could look at road systems, rail systems and shipping systems. The objectives of the Bill are as follows: That the Inter-State Commission should look at interstate transport services. The terms should be reasonable and the Commission should consider them to be reasonable and just. It can look at instances where there is preference or advantage in relation to interstate transport given to any particular person, State, locality, class or kind of transport and at whether or not that preference or advantage is undue or unreasonable. The Inter-State Commission can also examine discrimination or disadvantage in relation to interstate transport to which any particular person, State, locality, class or kind of transport is subject. It can also examine whether the doing of an act or thing by a State or an authority of a State will affect the trade or commerce among States. Those are the four broad objectives-the reasonableness and justness of services and conditions, the preferences and advantages that are shown, discrimination or disadvantage, and the acts between States which may affect trade or commerce. I contend that these objectives are exact duplications of the objectives of already existing authorities and the legislation is not needed. The areas of commerce, trade, financial support and terms of that support, government subsidies, industrial relations, road and rail systems and shipping are already covered by a multiplicity of organisations. They are covered by the Economic Policy Advisory Council, the Loan Council, the Premiers Conference, the Advisory Council for Inter-governmental Relations, the Bureau of Transport Economics, the Australian Advisory Council, the pricing authority which has yet to be established, the Industries Assistance Commission and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I could keep going. There are many organisations that can cover exactly the processes which are outlined in this legislation. Therefore, I believe the establishment of an inter-state commission is unwarranted and unjustified. If there are specific needs we have had specific inquiries. Honourable members will remember the inquiry into the long distance road transport of Australia by Sir David Hay. It was an excellent inquiry that produced results. The Minister for Transport has established an examination of the road transport systems of Australia. That was an ideal inquiry to add to the Inter-State Commission but the Minister chose not to do that. These provisions are unwarranted, unjustified and duplicate existing systems. The past history of the Inter-State Commission has been outlined by other honourable members. However, I also wish to lend my weight to the proposition that the history of the Inter-State Commission has been divisive and has always been an object of suspicion among States and members of the Commonwealth as well as parliamentarians. The reason for that suspicion and divisiveness is easily assessed when one considers the words of Mr W. M. Hughes. On 13 December 1912 in his second reading speech introducing the Commission stressing the wide scope intended for it, he stated: The power of our Interstate Commission will not be confined to dealing with railway rates. In addition to this it will have power with regard to carriers generally . . . it will have power in regard to shipping . . . to deal with all matters incidental to the Anti-Trust Act, the Tariff, and to make inquiries in relation to all questions relating to trade (and) commerce . . . In addition, there is no limitation to the subjects that may be referred to it by resolution of either House of the Parliament. The Interstate Commission will be, amongst other things, a Board of Trade. The powers that were ascribed to that Commission and the powers that were retained for it in its various forms over the years have been the capacity to investigate and adjudicate on matters such as prices of commodities, profits of trade and manufacture, wages and social and industrial commissions, labour employment and unemployment, bounty paid by foreign countries to encourage shipping or export, population and immigration. The powers of the Inter-State Commission have been wide and that is the reason why at every stage during its history it has been regarded with real suspicion. The Inter-State Commission Act was introduced in 1912. It lapsed in 1920 following a wheat case before the High Court of Australia. It was reintroduced in 1937 and again lapsed. In 1959, it was discussed at the Constitutional Convention where Mr Whitlam took a very strong role in promoting the activities and concept of an interstate commission. He promoted it in exactly the form that Mr Hughes established it originally. In 1974, a Bill was introduced and eventually passed after being modified very considerably by the Senate. At that stage Mr Charles Jones said in his second reading speech that the Inter-State Commission was a commission for transport only but it had all of these other incredible powers attached to it. Those powers were the powers that concerned members of this House and the States of Australia. The powers of the Inter-State Commission, as it is now before us, are also matters of concern to me. If honourable members were to examine the adjudication powers when the Commission is given a reference by the Minister, they would find that the Inter-State Commission is required to adjudicate on all matters. I shall read the relevant part of the Bill. any adjudication by the Commission in relation to that matter and any recommendations that the Commission thinks fit to make in consequence of those findings . . . The Commission may, if it thinks fit, recommend a system of freight cost equalization or subsidy. So the capacity to adjudicate in the instances I have outlined connected with transport is very wide indeed. There are no rules of evidence required for this Commission. That is something that the Government is not prepared to adopt for its National Crime Authority. It is not prepared to give that body investigating crime the same power as it wishes to give this body-absolute power concerning evidence. Mr Wran, in his recently established inquiry into the affairs of Mr Jackson, was not prepared to give that inquiry the powers that the Government is giving to this Inter-State Commission. Taking the matter further, one sees that there are matters relating to the appearance of witnesses. Witnesses may be summonsed, and the Commission shall gaol, if necessary, or fine those who fail to appear. The imprisonment period is one of six months, and there is a fine of $1,000 if people fail to appear before the Commission. One cannot avoid incriminating oneself before this Commission. These are all matters that the Labor Party claims are matters of civil liberties . We have read in the Press about the difficulties it has had in accepting a National Crime Authority that has any teeth. In fact, it is an emasculated Authority for which this House will eventually see the legislation. In this Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill we have those very powers that the Government has chosen to take out of its National Crime Authority Bill. The powers are there in relation to evidence, incrimination and appearances, and in relation to fining and calling for documents. They are there for all those aspects that are so thoroughly objectionable. That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that this legislation is like the banker who will provide , when the need is not there, every wealth that a farmer desires, but when the need is there he will not provide the wherewithal. Where the powers are needed, they will not be given. The Government will not give them to the National Crime Authority, but where the powers are not needed the Government has provided them. The legislation is bad. The concept is bad. I am opposed to the concept of an Inter-State Commission. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(11.17) —in reply-I thank those honourable members who have participated in the debate this evening and on the occasion of the debate last week. I thank particularly the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) for his positive and constructive contribution. He raised the serious matter of road safety and the safety of heavy vehicles in road transport. I thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) for his effective input to the debate this evening. He raised the interesting constitutional question of the exclusion of the Northern Territory from the scope of the Inter-State Commission. From our viewpoint, it seems to have been an accident of history rather than a deliberate intent on the part of the founding fathers when they were drawing up the relevant sections of the Constitution towards the end of last century. It is a fact, however, that the Inter-State Commission could pick up Northern Territory State-type issues if such issues were incidental to a wider inter-State transport issue under examination by the Commission, and obviously, ultimate statehood for the Northern Territory in due course will bring it within the ambit of the activities of the Inter-State Commission. We have made it clear during all the public statements in opposition at the last election and since coming to government that the Commission's activities will be based upon consultation, as is the whole spirit of this Government's endeavours. At this stage I should like quickly to run through the points raised by Opposition speakers. There was one recurring theme in the contributions from honourable members opposite, that of dissension within the Opposition on policy. The last words of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), for instance, were that he is opposed to the Inter-State Commission. The Act we are amending this evening, in a very minor way, was passed with bipartisan support in 1975 in both Houses. Most of the amendments were cast by the then Opposition. The Bill this evening that we are dealing with will not be opposed by the Opposition. As I move through the comments made by the speakers of the Opposition, I see that the one constant theme is that of dissension within Opposition ranks as to what their policy really is. I am really fascinated by the policies of those who sit opposite. They had seven years to correct all the ailments, all the shortcomings of the transport services of this country. Their only contribution was to exacerbate them. Over the course of the last few weeks we heard during this debate appeals to us as the Government now to remedy the shortcomings and the failures that those who now sit opposite are responsible for. All the suggestions are coming forward on what ought to be done. The short response from the Government to all of the honourable members opposite is this: They had seven years to remedy the situation. Why did they not do something then? They should not come in here like a bunch of whinging willies trying to appeal to us now to correct the disasters that they have created. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), again in contradiction of the remarks of some of his colleagues, made the point that he was disappointed that the Inter-State Commission was not going to be an adjudicatory body, that it was not going to be a regulatory body. The last speaker for the Opposition, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), said the opposite. He complained that air passenger services would be excluded from the ambit of the Commission. The present amendment in respect of section 6 of the Act replaces the amendment written in by the then Opposition in 1975. That initiative came from the Liberal -Country Party, it did not originate on this side of the House. We are preserving, in the amendments tonight, the same exclusion in respect of air passenger services that was put forward by the Liberal-Country Party Opposition of 1975. The honourable member sees it in some sinister way as being protection of the two-airline agreement. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) made the point the week before last that the two-airline agreement is a pipeline to the mint for the private operator. They are his words. It is the Opposition's agreement. Mr Reeves —They are going to close down TAA. Mr PETER MORRIS —Well, Opposition members have made the point clear that they would want to see sell all of the statutory authorities and all of the transport enterprises. I think they should make that statement clearer to the public and particularly to members of the National Party of Australia. In some way the honourable member for Wilmot again raises the point that I, as Minister, have something in mind-he is not sure of what it is-to retard the growth of the road freight industry. That is just sheer nonsense. Again he, like the last speaker, has not read the Bill or, if he has read the Bill, certianly did not understand it, because the Bill provides for an updating of an investigatory and advisory body, not a regulatory body. If we want to retard something or inhibit the growth of an industry the action will have to be regulatory, as the honourable member for Wilmot wanted. On the one hand he wants something that is not in the Bill and then sort of abscribes to me something sinister in intent to write into the Act what he really wants himself. There is no intent and no way in which the Inter-State Commission can be a regulatory body. I say that for the forty-fifth time for those who sit opposite who try to conjure up propositions in substitute for responsbile argument. The honourable member for Wilmot raised the point of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme review by the Inter-State Commission. We have made it very clear in all honesty and frankness to the people of Tasmania, to the Farmers and Graziers Association, to the Chamber of Industry and Commerce down there, to the Tasmanian Minister of Transport, to the unions and to everyone that the frieght equalisation scheme will be reviewed by the Inter-State Commission. That will be its first task when the Commission gets under way. There will be consultations with all the interested organisations, unions and the Government down there on the terms of reference, as we indicated at the very outset. But I have to say that this kind of outright scaremongering and public mischief-making has only one certain and damaging effect; that is, to undermine business confidence in Tasmania. I make one appeal to the Liberal members who represent Tasmania: It is time they started representing that State in a positive way that engenders the recovery or redevelopment of business confidence in that State rather than constantly seeking to undermine confidence and carry out public mischief. In view of the attack by the honourable member for Wilmot on the freight equalisation scheme, I cannot help but draw to his attention the remarks of his colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) on 2 November in the debate on the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Franklin made a point which I put to the hounourable member for Wilmot. He said: We in Tasmania realise that we have to be sensible and have to realise, once and for all, that we cannot be continually propped up by the mainland. For heavens sake, if there are to be Liberal members representing Tasmania, they should get their act together and have some sort of consistency in what they put to the Parliament in presenting the needs of Tasmania. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell, has obviously not read the Bill or, if he has, he does not understand it, he also conjured up an argument based on the original Inter-State Commission which was a commission with adjudicatory and regulatory powers, a very powerful organisation and one which carried out one inquiry. There was the wheat case about 1912 or 1914, whatever the relevant year was. Mr Cadman —It was 1915. Mr PETER MORRIS —Thank you, 1915. Thereafter, the Commission went into limbo. Another commission was proposed and debated in the late 1930s, one to which the honourable member referred. Let us get back to relevance. We are debating and discussing amendments to the 1975 Inter-State Commission Act, an investigatory and advisory body that has none of the powers that were referred to by the honourable member for Mitchell. Mr Cadman —What, of evidence. Mr PETER MORRIS —I was not referring to evidence. I am referring to regulation and adjudication. Mr Cadman —I understand that. Mr PETER MORRIS —That is right, yes. Most of the honourable member's argument was based on that, but the rest of it was simply a tack-on. The honourable member's concern was about determination, regulation and adjudication. Those powers are not provided for in the Act that we are amending. It seems to me that the Liberal and National parties, having spent seven years doing nothing are back to their old form of 'let's do nothing about national transport; just leave it as it is. Let it decay; let it erode; let it become more inefficient'. We have seen the results of that seven year do-nothing policy. It has brought this country almost to its knees and has caused enormous havoc in the road transport industry and all of the transport industries. It is not in Australia's interest to leave the transport industry under such policies. As the honourable member said in his last remarks, he is in opposition to the Bill anyway. That is a matter for him and his colleagues to solve within their party and their party room. It is for them to work out their policy. Mr Hand —They haven't got one. Mr PETER MORRIS —No, I do not believe they have a policy actually. Mr Hand —They haven't got a policy on anything. Mr PETER MORRIS —They do not have a policy on anything. They are like Micawber; like him, they wait seven years for something to turn up. In fairness to the honourable member for Mitchell I should mention that he said that there was the David Hay inquiry into road transport. If the honourable member attempts to attribute to that inquiry some semblance of addressing the real problems of the road transport industry, it is no wonder that he is in Opposition and that he will stay there for a long time because his government had that inquiry and did nothing about it. I now get back to the points raised by the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). He said that the Commission will duplicate the activities of other bodies. There is no duplication whatsoever. The first task of the Commission will be the freight equalisation scheme for Tasmania. That is not being investigated by any other organisation. Only the Commission will have the powers to summon the production of evidence and to summon witnesses. The honourable member seems to have missed the point made then that the Commission has powers that are not available to other bodies that have been referred to, such as the Australian Transport Advisory Council or the Bureau of Transport Economics. The honourable member made the point also that legislative action by the Parliament based on recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission may be subject to constitutional challenge, particularly where trade between the States is concerned. It is a curious concept, because the IAC is an integral element in the Constitution's provisions for trade and commerce. What reason has been advanced to believe a constitutional instrument such as the IAC will lead the Government towards unconstitutional action? There has been none. The point was made by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) and by the honourable member for Mitchell that the road freight industry inquiry could have been carried out by the Inter-State Commission. That is not the case, because the road freight inquiry is looking at intra-state matters as well as interstate matters. The Commission's activities are confined to transport matters of an interstate nature. It was for that reason, because of the collaboration between the States, the Northern Territory and this Government and because of the need to get that inquiry under way as early as possible, that we established the national road freight industry inquiry in the form in which it has been established. The point was made that the Commission will become another commission or instrumentality and that it will become part of the bureacracy and lose its ginger and its vigour. I think that is sheer nonsense; it implies that this Government will carry on its affairs in the same way as the previous Government did. I simply make the point that in my second reading speech I referred to this Government's intention to review the performance and the progress of the Inter- State Commission at the end of the first seven years. The point was also made that centralisation would be a difficulty, that there would be an intrusion into States' rights and that there was no obligation to consult with the States. We have made it very clear to the States that our intention is to consult with the States on the terms of reference. I make the point ad nauseum that the original Act of 1975 was passed with bipartisan support. That support is confirmed this evening by the fact that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. The spurious point was also made that the Inter-State Commission will become a regulatory body. I have said earlier in my remarks that that just is not so. Those powers are not provided for in the Act that we are amending this evening. The argument about regulation and deregulation is going on within the ranks of the Opposition. It seems to me that the previous Administration is consumed by this continuing, sterile, internal wrangle over a dogma of regulation versus dergulation. The issue is not a simplistic question of regulation versus deregulation. Proponents of deregulation ignore the fact that an economy with less public regulation is, on the other hand, increasingly regulated by powerful private interests, by the conglomerates in the market. Not only does this produce an inefficient market but it also produces a market which works to the detriment of many operators and consumers. What is needed is an ongoing process of reform that ensures that regulation is relevant to consumers, to industry and to public needs and is responsive to changing circumstances. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) raised several points, and I shall quickly refer to them. He mentioned the duplication of the work of ATAC, the Transport Industry Advisory Council and parliamentary committees, and said that the Commission would become another bureaucracy that would grow. I have dealt with that matter already. As I have said, the Commission has powers which those organisations, which are of an advisory or investigatory nature, do not have and the Commission is restricted to transport matters of an interstate nature. I pointed out in my second reading speech that the establishment of a commission was recommended by the report of the Nimmo Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania of 1976. That report recommended that the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme be reviewed annually or biennially and that the Inter-State Commission was the appropriate body to carry out that review. The honourable member for Braddon complained rather bitterly about the lack of Tasmanians on the High Court of Australia. I suggest that he refer to his own record, look at what happened in the last seven years and talk to his colleagues about that matter. Mr McVeigh —It is hardly anything to do with this Bill, is it? Mr PETER MORRIS —Exactly, but that was the point that he raised. He asked why there were no Tasmanians on the High Court and made an appeal for Tasmanians to be placed on the Commission. Each of the States has been invited to put forward names for consideration for appointment to the Commission. At this stage the Tasmanian Minister for Transport has not responded. Certainly, all nominations will be duly and properly considered. The last matter raised by the honourable member for Braddon was his hope that under the Act I as Minister would be able to direct the Commission to examine the circumstances of a waterfront dispute as it affects the people on both sides of Bass Strait. Let me make it quite clear that I do not have that power. The Commission is not intended for that kind of function. It is not intended to be an organisation that can fire out an action team to a place where disputes are occurring to get facts and to consider each dispute carefully. They are matters of industrial relations. It is obvious again that the honourable member for Braddon also misunderstood the purpose of the Inter-State Commission. It has no mandate to investigate matters relating to industrial disputes even though they affect interstate transport operations. Nevertheless, it is important to understand how vital good industrial relations in marine areas are to Tasmania; indeed, to the whole of Australia. It is for that reason that this Government has initiated from the outset a continuing program of consultation with the seagoing unions and the Department of Transport so that there is a frank exchange of views, ideas and information on problems and an understanding on the part of all concerned of the importance of transport services. We will try to head off problems before they occur rather than wait till something happens and follow the crisis management policies of the seven years of the previous Liberal -Country Party Government. The Inter-State Commission will be an important tool to this Government in the development of a national transport policy and in the explanation of the policies that we propose to introduce over the remainder of the parliamentary term. I thank those honourable members who have participated in the debate and I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. House adjourned at 11.38 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act relating to the Australian National Railways Commission. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions, to repeal certain Acts and to make certain amendments in consequence of the enactment of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970. Mr Uren to move- That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House of Representatives approves the following proposals contained in the reports of the Joint Committee on the ACT and the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 22 September 1983 and 11 October 1983 respectively, namely: Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue extension to the new Parliament House; and the construction of pier protection under Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 145 Dr Everingham asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Has the Government broken its pre-election promise not to apply sales tax to tyre retreads. (2) Will the Government pay the costs of legal action by school bus drivers and other rural owner-driver organisations to establish whether retreading is manufacture and therefore subject to sales tax. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In the course of the recent Federal election campaign the Government, then the Opposition, had been persuaded that a 20 per cent sales tax on the wholesale value of retreaded tyres produced in Australia was undesirable. However, it is now clear that the Government's position in Opposition was not based on the full range of information available. The following factors caused the Government to adopt its recently announced position: (a) Where a customer supplies a tyre casing to be retreaded, sales tax will be payable at 20 per cent on the retreading charge only which is, for example, about one-third of the price of a comparable new truck tyre. (b) Partly offsetting the impact of the sales tax on retreaded tyres, retreaders will no longer be liable for sales tax at 20 per cent on materials such as rubber used for the production of the retread, and at 7.5 per cent on machinery and implements used in the retreading of tyres. (c) There will continue to be a significant price advantage in respect of retreaded tyres compared with prices of new tyres of the same or similar specifications. In the majority of cases the further tax payable will be the difference between the tax payable on the wholesale value of the retreaded tyre and the tax previously payable on the rubber and other taxable materials used in the retreading process. (2) Where Legal proceedings are taken against a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation, it is the general practice in the courts for costs to be awarded against the unsuccessful party. It is not the Commissioners's practice to undertake to pay the costs of taxpayers who take proceedings against him in the event that the taxpayer is unsuccessful. The Government is not of the view that the practice should be varied in this instance. Question No. 175 Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Can the Minister say in which countries tax deductions are permitted for the cost of keeping pre-school children at approved child care centres; if so, what amount is deductible in each country. (2) Has the Government considered a similar course of action. Mr Keating —The answers to the honourable member's question are as follows: (1) The Government is aware that there are countries which permit some form of taxation relief for the cost of keeping pre-school children at approved child- care centres. Such information as is held on this subject is, however, incomplete. It is not possible, therefore, to state with any accuracy the extent of the relief available. (2) No. Question No. 302 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Has his attention been drawn to a suggestion by Professor Peter Groenewegen, in a letter to the Financial Review of 32 May 1983, that the Taxation Commissioner be instructed to analyse in detail the claims for dividend rebates in the income year to 30 June 1983, so that a statistical profile of what is known as small investors can be obtained; if so, can he say whether he supports this suggestion . Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commissioner of Taxation has advised me that in pursuance of his statutory responsibility to report on the working of the Income Tax Assessment Act, he had already arranged for statistics of assessments of individuals that include dividend rebates to be compiled from income tax returns processed during 1983-84 , with a view to their publication in due course in Taxation Statistics, the supplement to the Report of the Commissioner of Taxation. As is the case in respect of statistics of other rebates, the data will be classified by size of taxable income, by occupation group and by the office in which the returns are assessed. Classifications by age, by sex, and by size of income should also be available. Other characteristics of taxpayers with dividend rebates will be available from a sample of returns which will be used to supplement the information from the main statistical tables. In addition, statistics of dividends received will be included in the main statistical tables of individuals, partnerships and trusts. Question No. 306 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: In cases where taxpayers have beenn identified as being involved in a tax avoidance scheme and have been served with a large tax assessment by the Commissioner of Taxation, will he give consideration to (a) taking steps to freeze or withdraw the passport of the taxpayer until the tax has been paid and (b) ensuring that any property transferred out of the name of the taxpayer in order to avoid meeting the tax liability is recoverable by the Commissioner to assist in paying the tax. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The proposition that there be a withdrawal or withholding of passports in the circumstances referred to by the honourable member raises important policy considerations including fundamental issues concerning individual rights and civil liberties. The Commissioner of Taxation, who is responsibile for the administration of the taxation laws, has advised that all appropriate means available in the circumstances of a relevant case are taken to recover outstanding tax. An increasing incidence of cases has been noted where taxpayers have alienated assets, for example, to family trusts, and are left with insufficient funds to meet their taxation liabilities. The Commissioner is currently considering legal advice he has recently received on the avenues available for the collection of tax. If the Commissioner concludes that the existing avenues for recovery of outstanding tax in the cases referred to are inadequate, the Government will consider what supportive action might be appropriate. Question No. 307 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Does the Taxation Commissioner's report for 1981 reveal that (a) at the end of June 1981, $973m of tax assessed in tax avoidance schemes remained uncollected, because of administrative challenge, (b) there was a shortfall in revenue due to tax avoidance schemes in 1980-81, which alone reached $310m, (c) the number of experienced staff required to be allocated to the additional work of detecting, monitoring, investigating and contesting tax avoidance schemes continues to make serious inroads into resources available for other administrative functions, (d) investigations, field audits and internal check processes raised an additional $167.7m in 1980-81 from tax evasion and fraud, (e ) the total staff in the Taxation Office at 30 June 1981 was 12,311, of which 983 were investigating officers, (f) income tax revenue collected in 1980-81 was $22,398,907,062 and net cost of collection of income tax as a percentage of income tax revenue collected was 0.87 per cent, a decrease on previous years and (g) in 1980-81, income, wage and salary earners paid 82 per cent of all the individual income tax burden. (2) Did the former Treasurer (a) increase taxation staff by 400 in an effort to minimise tax losses, as indicated in response to my question in May 1979 and (b) maintain or increase staff throughout the subsequent years; if so, by how many. (3) If staff levels were reduced, by what number were they reduced, and what was the resultant loss to revenue. (4) Is it a fact that for each reduction in staff by one there is a saving of $ 20,000, but the loss to revenue from such a cut is estimated to be $200,000. (5) In order to give the Commissioner sufficient investigating, recovery and support staff and to enable his Department to minimise this escalation of revenue loss, will he issue immediate instructions that there will be no staff ceiling imposed in his Department as one effective weapon to minimise tax avoidance. (6) Given the Commonwealth powers under sections 177, 207, 209 and 218 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to collect taxes after one month has elapsed from the date of assessment, even though appeals may be pending, why is the uncollected tax figure so large. (7) Is the Commissioner using the full range of powers available to him. (8) Has the Commissioner commenced legal proceedings against any suspected tax- avoiders under part IV (A) of the Act; if so, when and will he name the people; if not, why not. (9) Do these offenders fall within sub-section 14 (2) of the Act which obliges disclosure. (10) In the case of proceedings which have commenced, when are they expected to conclude. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The amount of $973m represents the cumulative amount of tax assessed and additional tax which was unpaid at 30 June 1981 by taxpayers who participated in schemes which had been identified and were under administrative challenge. (b) Taxpayer participation in identified artificial tax avoidance schemes in respect of which the revenue involved was able to be quantified resulted in an estimated revenue shortfall of $310m, during 1980-81. (c) to (e) Yes. (f) The net cost of collecting income tax in the year ended 30 June 1981 was . 879 per cent of total income collected. While this figure is lower than the corresponding figure for the previous year, the net cost of collection increased in absolute terms from $175m to $201m. (g) Collections of tax instalments from wages, salaries, pensions etc. of individuals in 1980-81 net of pay as you earn refunds-mainly in respect of PAYE collected in 1979-80-represented 80.5 per cent of total income tax collections from individuals. (2) (a) On the basis of submissions made by the Commissioner of Taxation to the Public Service Board in January 1979 the staff ceiling of the Taxation Office was increased by 400 for the year ended 30 June 1980. (2) (b) and (3) The allocation of staff ceilings to the Taxation Office for the year ended 30 June 1981 was maintained at the level of operative for the previous financial year. Allocated staff ceilings at 30 June 1982 and 1983 were 12,757 and 14,245, that is increases of 432 and 1488 respectively. (4) The effect of revenue of a reduction in staff depends upon which particular functional area within the Taxation Office ultimately absorbs the reduction. Any variation to staff numbers in the Taxation Office can be expected to have some effect on the amount of taxation revenue that will be collected but it is impossible to quantify the net effect. (5) Practical constraints preclude any Government from adopting a policy of expanding the number of staff in the Taxation Office-or any other revenue collecting agency-to the point where every dollar of revenue capable of being collected each year is collected, no matter at what cost. Staff ceilings are initially determined by means of the forward staffing estimates process, the procedures of which enable the staffing needs of the Taxation Office to be considered in relation to those of the whole Public Service and to the Government's budgetary objectives. (6) The collection and recovery policy applied in respect of a taxpayer who disputes an income tax assessment will depend on whether the dispute concerns a so-called artificial or paper scheme of tax avoidance, or is a genuine dispute. The differing treatment follows from a ruling of the courts. Where, in respect of an artificial scheme case, an objection is determined against a taxpayer, the taxpayer is immediately notified of the amount outstanding. If payment of the amount is not made within 30 days of notification , and the taxpayer does not qualify for extended time for payment, legal action for recovery will commence unless there is a court decision on a substantive issue against the Commissioner of Taxation. With regard to genuine dispute cases, decisions of the courts make it quite clear that, despite the existence of the tax provisions mentioned, in proceedings to collect or recover tax owing the courts have a discretion, and will use that discretion to stay the execution of a judgment or the presentation of a winding up or sequestration order where the relevant assessment is in dispute and the taxpayer has a substantial argument that the assessment might be set aside. In practice, an offer by a taxpayer with a genuine dispute to pay 50 per cent of the tax attributable to the matters at issue-plus the full amount of tax that would remain payable irrespective of the result of the dispute-subject to the balance attracting additional tax for late payment from the original due date is generally sufficient for the Commissioner to defer legal action until resolution of the issues. (7) The Commissioner has assured me that, subject to the exercise of a court's discretion mentioned in the preceding answer, his officers use all appropriate means available to recover outstanding tax, depending on the circumstances of each particular case. In doing so reliance is placed not only on the provisions of the taxation laws but also on any other laws which are appropriate in the circumstances of the relevant case. (8) The Commissioner of Taxation has informed me that the application of part IVA has not yet been the subject of legal proceedings. He confirmed, however, that the provisions have been applied to a number of taxpayers to deny claims made in connection with their participation in a particular tax avoidance scheme . It is expected that the dispute will proceed to litigation in the ordinary way . (9) The Commissioner has advised me that, in deciding whether to report a breach or evasion of the Income Tax Assessment Act pursuant to sub-section 14 (2 ), the same considerations will apply to a taxpayer in relation to whom a determination has been made under part IVA as apply to taxpayers who are charged additional tax under sub-section 226 (2) of the Act. (10) See answer to question (8). Question No. 323 Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: How much extra revenue would be collected if the present proposal for an upper limit on 1 per cent Medicare tax were abandoned. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The amount of extra revenue that would be gained in a full year if the upper limit on the proposed Medicare levy were to be removed is estimated to be $15m. Question No. 363 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: How many people were employed full time in each Commonwealth statutory authority and what was the wages and salary bill in each authority at the end of the last 10 financial years. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information requested by the honourable member is not directly available in my Department in the form and detail sought. However, details of expenditure on wages and salaries for statutory authorities may be found by reference to the following: for authorities the staff of which are employed under the Public Service Act and for which estimates provision is made under the salaries appropriation items of a department-Table 9 of Budget Paper No. 5, Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimates Expenditure; for authorities the estimates for which are approved by a Minister and which are not included under the salaries appropriation items of a department-Table 14 of Budget Paper No. 5; and for other authorities-further information may be available from the individual annual reports. Question No. 432 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In respect of my portfolio payments to the Queensland Government for the period 1 July 1972 to 31 August 1983 were made under natural disaster relief arrangements and under the wage pause program initiated by the previous Government. PAYMENTS TO QUEENSLAND FOR NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF Nature of payments Capital Capital Financial year Recurrent Grants Loans Total $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 1972-73(a) 32 -74 (b) (b) -42 1973-74 3,990 23,869 (b) (b) 27,859 1974-75 113 25,509 1,212 26,834 1975-76 52 6,319 81 6,452 1976-77 45 10,645 449 11,139 1977-78 231 11,080 3,762 15,073 1978-79 1,755 5,773 1,434 8,962 1979-80 1,303 6,313 216 7,832 1980-81 8,583 6,705 6,755 22,043 1981-82 2,328 4,082 3,703 10,113 1982-83 15,808 3,379 22,597 41,784 To August 1983 1,512 309 5,487 7,308 35,752 103,909 45,696 185,357 (a) For the period 1 July 1972 to 30 June 1973 instead of from December 1972 as requested due to accounting records no longer being available. (b) The grants/loans split is not available for 1972-73 and 1973-74. Note: Further information in respect of natural disaster relief arrangements may be obtained from 1983-84 Budget Paper No. 7. PAYMENTS TO QUEENSLAND UNDER WAGE PAUSE PROGRAM $30.5m has been provided to Queensland by way of grants between February and August 1983. PAYMENTS RETURNED OR REFUSED Although I am unaware of any payments having been returned or refused an absolute assurance in this regard would require an exhaustive examination of detailed records over an eleven year period. I have not authorised the allocation of the considerable resources necessary to conduct such an examination. Question No. 482 Mr Burr asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 September 1983 : (1) Why does mail, posted at ordinary letter rate, take up to seven days to get from Parliament House, Canberra to Launceston, Tasmania. (2) Is any degree of urgency placed on mail carrying the franking of the House of Representatives and destined for members in electorates situated at extreme distances from the national capital. (3) Under present postal regulations, is it possible to ensure that the mail of members in electorates situated some distance from normal mail routes receives priority treatment. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) The standard of service for delivery in Launceston of standard articles and other air mail posted at Parliament House Post Office, Canberra, is next working day delivery, if posted by 2.00 p.m. The standard of service for delivery of non -standard enveloped articles is the second working day after posting. Results of service performance checks on standard articles during the period July to September 1983 indicate that about 80 per cent of such mail from Canberra to Launceston was delivered to meet the service standard. The remaining articles were delivered only one day late: that is, on the second working day after posting. For non-standard enveloped articles, service performance results show almost 100 per cent meeting the standard. I am informed that Australia Post is working with your office staff to identify the cause of the particular problem you have experienced with mail delivery. (2) All mail is processed with the objective of meeting service standards. No differentiation is made based on the origin of the mail. Expedited handling is given to mail lodged for speed services, such as Priority Paid, Messenger Delivery and Australia Post Express. (3) Yes. If the service standard for ordinary mail on a specific mail path is inadequate for the particular purpose, then one of Australia Post's premium speed mail services can be used. Question No. 553 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Is the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) about to place a contract for the survey of the marine cable route from Australia to Singapore via Indonesia; if so what will be the approximate cost of the survey and what share will Australia pay. (2) Will OTC be insisting on Australian content in this survey separate from Australian content in the overall project; if not, what steps will be taken to ensure that Australia receives contracts commensurate with its overall contribution. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) is co-operating with the organisations responsible for international telecommunications in Singapore, Indonesia and Hong Kong in the planning of a submarine cable from Perth to Singapore via Jakarta. Part of this planning involves a route survey for which tenders were called by the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore acting on behalf of the other participants. Contract negotiations are now in progress. The final cost will depend on the duration of the marine work and is expected to be about $1.5m of which OTC's share will be approximately $0.9m. (2) In an international project of this nature involving co-operation between the telecommunications authorities of a number of Governments, OTC is not able to insist on Australian content. However, the route survey contract is expected to result in Australian content equivalent to approximately 17 per cent of Australia's payment share. Question No. 560 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: Is any action being taken to introduce stereo television in Australia; if so, ( a) when will it be available and (b) what role will his Department have in its introduction. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Laboratory tests have recently been concluded in the Melbourne laboratories of my Department. On air tests have also been conducted on two alternative systems. The results are currently being evaluated by my Department. Following consultation with receiver manufacturers and the broadcasting industry, I will make an announcement as soon as possible concerning dual sound television. Question No. 568 Mr Wells asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the Queensland Taxation Office has received information on a number of people who have never submitted tax returns as a result of the introduction of the withholding tax; if so, what are the details. (2) Is he able to provide similar figures on a State by State basis; if so, what are the details. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. All taxation office branches have received similar information. (2) As shown in the table below over 23,000 applications for income tax file number have been received up to 4 October 1983. Preliminary examination of these applications and other information received by the Taxation Office indicates that in excess of 25 per cent had outstanding obligations to lodge returns. Of the balance, it may reasonably be assumed that a significant number will also have outstanding obligations to lodge returns. Branch office Individuals Partnerships Trusts Companies Total Sydney 1,175 1,762 620 2,574 6,131 Parramatta 667 944 223 948 2,782 Melbourne 859 2,181 839 1,020 4,899 Brisbane 1,017 2,089 776 534 4,416 Adelaide 687 1, 122 215 302 2,326 Perth 306 1,057 474 241 2,078 Hobart 35 149 49 26 259 Canberra 197 237 61 103 598 4,943 9,541 3,257 5,748 23,489 Question No. 575 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) What are the terms of reference of the inquiry to be conducted by Mr Justice Toohey into the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act. (2) With regard to the inquiry (a) how will it be conducted, (b) what resources have been made available, (c) when is it to be completed, (d) will the report be made public, (e) what form of consultations will be taken following the report and (f) what is the estimated total cost. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I appointed Mr Justice Toohey on 29 June 1983 to undertake a general review of and report on the provisions and operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights ( Northern Territory) Act 1976, and to recommend amendments to that Act and changes to any other legislation where appropriate, having regard to the following principles which the Government sees as fundamental in relation to Aboriginal land rights: (1) Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title; (2) protection of Aboriginal sites; (3) Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; (4) access to mining royalty equivalents; (5) compensation for lost land to be negotiated; and, without derogating from the generality of the foregoing, to report and recommend amendments where appropriate with respect to: (1) meeting the needs of Aboriginals who are unable to claim land under the Act for sufficient land for community living areas; (2) resolving administrative and procedural difficulties arising from the operation of the Act; (3) reducing any detriment to Aboriginals which might result from the provisions and operation of the Act; (4) reducing any areas of conflict or inconsistency between the administration of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and the Act; and (5) the extent and type of land available for claim by Aboriginals. (2)(a) Mr Justice Toohey will not be conducting public hearings or calling generally for submissions. I have authorised him however to invite certain persons and bodies affected by the Act, to make submissions to him. (2)(b) At His Honour's request I have made available to him for the duration of the review, the services of a senior officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Assistance will also be given as required in facilitating travel and in arranging necessary consultations. (2)(c) By 30 November 1983. (2)(d) Yes. (2)(e) Following issue of the report, I will arrange for whatever consultations seem appropriate. (2)(f) Approximately $10,000. Question No. 576 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) What are the terms of reference of the inquiry to be conducted by Mr Joseph Harkins into Aboriginal legal aid. (2) With regard to the inquiry (a) how will it be conducted, (b) what resources have been made available, (c) when is it expected to be completed, (d) will the report be made public, (e) what form of consultations will be taken following the report and (f) what is the estimated total cost. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The inquiry was established in order to establish effective role definitions and co-ordination among the Aboriginal legal services and the other legal aid agencies in terms of: the respective roles and responsibilities of Aboriginal Legal Services and other Australian Government, State, Territory and private legal assistance programs; means of improving co-ordination and co-operation among these agencies to ensure that Aboriginals requiring legal assistance can readily obtain it; the resources necessary to enable Aboriginal Legal Services to provide a full and adequate legal service for Aboriginals in the areas of their responsibility. (2)(a) Mr Harkins will visit the head offices of Aboriginal Legal Services in each State and the Northern Territory and, as far as possible, all branch offices of the services. He will also visit Australian legal aid offices, State legal aid commissions, public defenders offices and community legal centres. (b) Mr Harkins is being assisted by an officer of my Department's central office, and regional and area office staff as appropriate. The active support and co-operation of the National Aboriginal Conference has also been sought. (c) The inquiry is expected to be completed early in 1984. (d) Yes. (e) I expect consultation to take place with the National Aboriginal Conference , Aboriginal Legal Services and other legal aid agencies as necessary. (f) The cost of the consultancy is estimated to be $55,000. Departmental assistance is not costed separately. Question No. 581 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) How are the shares of the allocation of funds to State Governments for Aboriginal advancement determined. (2) Is he in the process of altering, or does he propose to alter, the basis upon which funds are allocated; if so, how. (3) In the event of increases in direct funding to Aboriginal organisations, will funding to State governments be maintained; if not on what basis will it be altered. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The allocation of funds to State governments is determined on the basis of bids received from them and the priority placed on those bids within the level of funding available to my portfolio. Priorities are determined in consultation with Aboriginal advisory bodies, representatives of the National Aboriginal Conference and State departments. This is done of course against the background of the Government's policy of promoting Aboriginal self-management. This is reflected in this year's budget where substantial additional funds have been provided by way of direct grants to Aboriginal organisations. The policy aims to promote greater involvement of Aboriginals in the management and control of projects which provide assistance to the Aboriginal community. It recognises that Aboriginals themselves are in the best position to determine what should be done and how it should be done. A number of State governments are also pursuing the same policy, and this is particularly so in the health area where Aboriginal organisations are keen to accept greater responsibility for the delivery of health services. Reviews in Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales have resulted in recommendations for greater control of Aboriginal health services by Aboriginals. A review is planned to start soon in Western Australia and it is hoped that is results will be similar to those I have just mentioned. The Government is also committed to ensuring that Aboriginal advancement programs which are funded through the States are developed in close consultation with Aboriginal people. In many areas substantial Aboriginal input has already been achieved. In others where this is not occurring, the Government will continue to press the States to involve Aboriginals in the development and management of programs which are financed with Commonwealth funds. Question No. 600 Mr Les Johnson asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 11 October 1983: (1) Has consideration been given to supporting the coal industry in the Wollongong area of New South Wales through the establishment of an Illawarra Regional Branch of the Commonwealth Scientific Industry Research Organisation; if so, with what results. (2) Can he substantiate that the operation of such a branch would intensify research into (a) new mining techniques, (b) development of coal by-products, (c ) waste disposal and (d) mine safety measures. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Officers of CSIRO, the University of Wollongong and the Wollongong City Council have commenced discussions on the feasibility of establishing in Wollongong a CSIRO section to carry out research of particular relevance to the coal industry. (2) Yes. The discussions have been on the basis that if such a section were established its research program would include all four topics mentioned. Question No. 609 Mr Drummond asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 October 1983: (1) How many taxpayers have submitted returns to the Taxation Office under the prescribed payments scheme. (2) How many of these are (a) paying (i) the full 25 per cent, (ii) 10 per cent , (iii) 9 per cent, (iv) 8 per cent, (v) 7 per cent, (vi) 6 per cent, (vii) 5 per cent, (viii) 4 per cent, (ix) 3 per cent, (x) 2 per cent, (xi) 1 per cent and (xii) nil and (b) have secured exemptions. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The first remittances for tax deducted from prescribed payments are only now due. Credit for tax deducted will be allowed in taxpayers' 1983-84 income tax assessments, the returns for which are not due to be lodged before 31 August 1984. (2) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised me that in excess of 300,000 taxpayers who received prescribed payments (payees) will be affected by the system. Figures on the number of payees who are having tax deducted at the rates of 25 cents or 10 cents in the dollar are not available. However, analysis of the number of deduction variation and deduction exemption certificates issued to 14 October 1983 show: (a) Deduction Variation Certificates Number Rate of deduction issued per cent 9 303 8 771 7 1,210 6 1,935 5 3,266 4 3,639 3 4,697 2 6,480 1 8,523 Nil 39,739 70,563 (b) Deduction exemption certificates have been issued to 21,735 payees. The remaining payees will have deductions made at the 10 per cent or 25 per cent rates. Question No. 623 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: (1) What involvement has the Minister's Department had in discussions on the possible use of Domsat as an educational aid in remote areas of Australia. (2) Have interdepartmental or other committees been established to examine the introduction and use of Domsat; if so, (a) what are the committees and (b) who are their members. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) My Department has had close and continuing liaison with the Department of Communications, and also consults as necessary with Aussat Pty Ltd, Telecom, SAT users and the Royal Flying Doctor Service. These consultations have included discussion on the possible educational use of satellite communication in remote areas. The Department chaired a working party on the educational use of the communications satellite, which consisted of representatives from State and Territory education authorities, for 3 years from October 1979. It currently chairs and services the Advisory Committee on the Educational Use of Communications Technology, which has members representing education authorities in the States and Territories, and consultant members. (2) Yes (see 1). (a) The Commonwealth/State Advisory Committee on the Educational Use of Communications Technology. (b) Members of (a): Mr J. Burnett (Chair) Department of Education and Youth Affairs State Representatives Mr R. G. King New South Wales Department of Technical and Further Education Mr T. King Victorian Education Department Mr J. Kitt Queensland Education Department Mr C. Dunnett South Australia Education Department Mr C. R. Rodgers Western Australia Education Department Mr G. Foster Tasmanian Education Department Mr J. Kirk Northern Territory Education Department Mr P. Miles Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Consultant Members Dr P. White La Trobe University Mr P. McNally Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education Mr W. Morris New South Wales Department of Technical and Further Education