Tuesday, 6 December 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) left Australia on 2 December to lead a business delegation to the Middle East and Cyprus. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is Acting Minister for Trade, and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is Acting Leader of the House until Mr Bowen returns. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will represent the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) in this chamber. I also inform the House that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) left Australia today to visit the Antarctic as a guest of the United States Government. He may bring back an iceblock in his right hand pocket. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is Acting Minister for Science and Technology until Mr Jones returns. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) will represent the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) in this chamber. Mr Donald Cameron proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice of motion is out of order. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the successful completion of the latest Commonwealth Bond Tender with its consequent fall in interest rates; (2) notes the favourable trend of interest rates on the secondary market; (3) notes the high levels of capital inflow into the Australian financial system along with healthy levels of savings bank deposits; and (4) calls on those financial institutions that have not already done so to lower housing mortgage interest rates at the earliest opportunity. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) that this House extends its deepest sympathy to the families of the two servicemen, Leading Seaman Garry Macey and Corporal Jim Campbell, whose lives were tragically lost in the crash of the Wessex Helicopter in Bass Strait on 4 December 1983; and (2) commends the crew of the Esso passenger helicopter for its efforts in rescuing six of those on board. Mr Scholes-In view of the nature of this notice of motion I ask whether the House could deal with it now and have it carried by honourable members. Mr SPEAKER —Is there any objection to that procedure being followed? There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed. Motion Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —by leave-I am grateful to the Government for giving me this opportunity. I move: (1) that this House extends its deepest sympathy to the families of the two servicemen, Leading Seaman Garry Macey and Corporal Jim Campbell, whose lives were tragically lost in the crash of the Wessex Helicopter in Bass Strait on 4 December 1983; and (2) commends the crew of the Esso passenger helicopter for its efforts in rescuing six of those on board. The two servicemen were trapped within the Wessex helicopter that sank in Bass Strait. I think all members of this place would wish to extend their sympathy to the families of the two servicemen who lost their lives and at the same time commend the crew of the Esso passenger helicopter which, being in the area at the time, was able to rescue the other six passengers who, although able to get out of the helicopter, were floating in the sea. Their lives would have been very much at risk had the Esso passenger helicopter not been in the area at that time. I commend the motion to the support of this House. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —I second the motion. On behalf of the Government and, I think, all Australians, I also express the deepest sympathy for the loss of life. There are risks involved in being in the Services, but, in peacetime, it is a tragic occasion when people lose their lives in such circumstances. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) will second: That this House calls upon the Government to bring on for debate General Business notice of motion, No. 261, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Denison to refer to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee for inquiry and report, serious allegations of threats, harassment, improper pressuring, intimidation, actual blackmail and bludgeoning against, and of, Australian Labor Party Members of Parliament prior to the ALP Caucus vote on uranium mining, together with Mr Collins' condemnation of fascists of the left within the ranks of the ALP. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the high level of job vacancies recorded by the Master Builders' Association in the building industry in Western Australia and (2) calls upon the Government to ensure a continued flow of funds to its First Home Owners Scheme. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House is of the opinion that a joint committee should be established as a matter of urgency to inquire into and report on all aspects of the conventions and practices relating to individual ministerial responsibility, with special reference to: (1) the nature of individual ministerial responsibility, and the principles and values on which it rests; (2) the role of this Parliament in upholding traditional conventions and practices, and exposing the guilt of Ministers; (3) the right and responsibility of this Parliament to inquire into the misconduct or misbehaviour of a Minister; and (4) the sanctions to be imposed against Ministers found guilty of- (a) deliberately misleading the Parliament; (b) being involved in criminal activity, tax evasion, or other culpable misconduct; (c) improper conduct; or (d) other errors or misdeeds. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with grave concern estimates of unemployment produced by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations; (2) confirms it worst fears that the newly released figures are consistent with those from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; (3) calls on the Government to release full details of employment projections for 1983-84 and 1984-85 to allow community discussion in the development of economic policies; and (4) condemns the Government for projections of unemployment made at the summit conference which are understated by one per cent, an error of 10 per cent in the total number unemployed. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) supports the call, made by 250 students, from Mt St Joseph's, Milperra, in their petition which I will present to the House, for the abolition of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; (2) congratulates the girls and their teachers for their active consideration of this important matter; (3) calls on the Government to encourage the United States of America and the Soviet Union to halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems, in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides; and (4) calls on the Government to oppose any extension of the countries that deploy nuclear weapons. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will second: That this House- (1) notes that as a result of the vigilance of the Premier of Tasmania, the honourable members for Bass, Braddon, Franklin, Denison and Wilmot in this House , and Tasmanian Liberal senators, the Government has been forced to give an undertaking in writing, from the Deputy Prime Minister to the Premier of Tasmania, that there will now be no joint fishing venture in Tasmania; and (2) demands that the Government will never again negotiate with Moscow about exploitation of Tasmania's natural resources. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Queen on refusing to be photographed with the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher; (2) notes with concern that the British Prime Minister was endeavouring to use the Queen for her own political advantage; and (3) deplores attempts by the honourable member for Denison to use the Queen in cheap political stunts when Her Majesty has clearly indicated her opposition to such practices. Mr GORMAN(Chifley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House commends Mr Max Webber, the Town Clerk of the City of Blacktown , for his dedication, not only to the Council staff and ratepayers for his 40 years of service to the City, but also for his activities in the many community organisations of which he is a member. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on Australian companies to take advantage of the Government's new industry assistance measures through the expanded role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the 100 per cent tax write-off for management and investment companies to increase investment in manufacturing. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern over proposals for high rise development on the beach front at Scarborough in Western Australia; and (2) urges local government authorities to take account of the wishes of the local residents and ratepayers in the development of appropriate tourist facilities. Mr SPENDER —The Minister for Aviation will recall tabling in Parliament last week the annual report of Qantas Airways Ltd. He will recall that that airline over the past several years has suffered very extensive losses on airline operations, including $71m over the last two financial years. He will also recall what the Chairman said in his letter to the Minister about the high debt ratio of Qantas, including: This debt remains high and it is important to remember that there is clearly an ongoing requirement for the Company to have sufficient funds this decade to ensure that we will maintain our fleet in a modern, efficient and competitive form. Will the Minister give an undertaking to this House that the proposed purchase by Qantas of new planes for the sum of $860m will be made without recourse to the Australian Government for taxpayers' funds? Mr BEAZLEY —Mr Speaker, I am indeed grateful that you have finally given the call to the honourable member for North Sydney. Both he and I have awaited that call with a degree of nervousness for some considerable time. I thank him for his question. I realised, once the question was asked, that I had no need for any sense of nervousness or any anticipation about it. The request by Qantas Airways Ltd for approval of its purchase of additional aircraft was presented to the Government on the basis that the purchase could be effected within the framework of Qantas's anticipated earnings over, I think, the next 10 years and also within the framework of funds that would be available to the airline and which would come from sources other than an additional capital injection. They would include the sale of certain Qantas properties and general Qantas trading activities. I anticipate that there will be no requirement for an injection of capital based upon the purchase of those aircraft. I cannot of course fortell the trading situation Qantas three or four years down the line and what might be necessary in relation to a capital injection then. I do not want to give quite the unqualified statement that the honourable member's question seemed to require of me in relation to a future capital injection into Qantas. But the figures on which the assessments were made were, if you like, not over optimistic. If anything, they were on the pessimistic side when looking at Qantas's trading possibilities. Therefore, in relation to the actual purchase itself one could not foresee, on a reasonable judgment, circumstances arising necessitating a capital injection. After a period of some losses, the Chairman of Qantas has assured the public and me that Qantas is beginning to trade itself back into a profitable position. It is his belief and mine that the purchase of the new aircraft will materially assist Qantas in that regard in two directions: Firstly, by the provision of more fuel efficient equipment-it is discarding six of its most aged Boeing 747 aircraft and taking on three new stretched upper deck aircraft and half a dozen Boeing 767s; secondly, because of the purchase of Boeing 767s which are a different type of aircraft with a smaller capacity than those which Qantas has been operating for some years now, Qantas will be able to take advantage of operations on less well populated but potentially profitable regional routes in the South West Pacific and South East Asia. I think Qantas and the Australian travelling public will benefit very considerably from this purchase. Qantas will continue to serve the public in the very efficient and effective manner that it has done in the past. When reference is made, as the honourable gentleman did, to Qantas's losses, we are entitled to look at Qantas's performance on a comparative basis. A large number of airlines are operating internationally; I think up to 200. Very few of them are making a profit. Qantas is closer to making a profit than most of them. If Qantas returns a profit for this year it will make it one of a very small number of international airlines that will be showing a profit on operations. If that is to be the case Qantas is to be congratulated on that. On the basic point that the honourable gentleman made I do not anticipate that a capital injection will be required in relation to Qantas's purchases. The Government decision was taken on the assumption that that would not be ncessary. I do not, however, want to give any unqualified undertakings that, at some time in the next few years, if the situation changes from what has been a fairly pessimistic assessment anyway, that would not have to be considered. But I am not anticipating it. Mr CHARLES —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted the complaint of the Victorian Premier, John Cain, that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service is stalling and preventing police inquiries into the ASIS fiasco at the Sheraton Hotel last week? Has he noted also that ASIS is reported to have claimed that it cannot offer co-operation to the Victorian Police until it receives a ministerial direction to do so? Therefore, will the Minister give a firm undertaking to ensure that there is co-operation between ASIS and the Victorian police on this matter? Mr HAYDEN —The short answer to the question is that the Government will take every step it can to reasonably extend that co-operation to the Victorian State Government and also to the Victorian police. I will come back to that in a tick. I think a few things should be put in context so that honourable members will understand developments in relation to this matter; that is, insofar as one can discuss this matter. I think honourable members understand that Mr Justice Hope has already commenced his investigations into this matter. Indeed, today he is hearing, on oath, evidence from various people who have been associated with this incident. In that context, there is obviously some restraint on what one should properly say. To put it in context, yesterday afternoon, and well before Premier Cain of Victoria conducted his late afternoon Press conference, I had a discussion with him on the telephone. I then explained to him that it was my inclination to provide as much information as I could, to divulge the identity of all of the people who had been involved in the ASIS exercise at the Sheraton Hotel on the night of 30 November. However, I went on to outline to him that I felt I had certain responsibilities to the Cabinet and, therefore, it would be necessary for me to take the matter up with the Cabinet and that would be done a little later in the afternoon at the Cabinet meeting. Further to that, there were considerations about the inalienable rights of all people in this country before the law, including the people who participated in the ASIS exercise. In that regard I felt a need to have discussions with the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, who is our chief legal adviser. Those things have been done and late last night I spoke to Premier Cain and I pointed out that the Government is prepared to divulge the identity of the people who were involved in the exercise at the Sheraton Hotel and to arrange for that information to be passed on to the Victorian State police. As I understood Mr Cain's response, he accepts the circumstances in which that information can and would be passed on. I will be talking to him later this afternoon. He was not available earlier today when I sought to talk with him. He was absent from the city of Melbourne. He did ask me to give some of the details of the exercise beyond those which were provided in the House last week. He made that request because, he pointed out, various speculations were rife in the community and he felt it desirable that an accurate account should be given-as far as one can go in detail-of what took place. The first thing that one needs to reassure the public on is that all of the information passed to me confirms that it was an exercise. There was no other motive or any other association. It was not related to any other exercise or to any other operations and ASIS was not on a standard of alert, which is not an arrangement which ASIS has anyway, as has been suggested. I gave some of the details of the exercise in the Parliament last week. I propose not to go beyond that except for one matter which I will refer to in a second. I propose not to go beyond it because the incident is being investigated in full detail by Mr Justice Hope. But there was some reference to a medical swab. Some of the more lurid descriptions in the newspapers suggested that it might have been an envelope for something else. In fact it was an antiseptic swab and it was used in a simulated endeavour to carry out a hypodermic injection-but I stress the word 'simulated'-for the purpose of immobilising the two guards who were holding the 'hostage' as part of this exercise. I am not canvassing the rights or wrongs , the wiseness or unwiseness, the reality or otherwise of what was done. I am giving an account of what took place. There is nothing more sinister than that in relation to that matter. I have now established that the total number of people involved in this exercise was 12, at the maximum. They were the people who were involved in the planning and preparation- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAYDEN —Honourable members may be interested to know that these organisational arrangements were not initiated by me but were arrangements which were put in place by my predecessor. If honourable members of the Opposition wish to challenge me on this-- Mr Peacock —Not by me. Mr HAYDEN —No, it was not the Leader of the Opposition, it was his successor. However, his successor merely concentrated the arrangements for exercises of a physical nature conducted by ASIS, as I understand it, into a new organisational arrangement, which also developed new capabilities. They were developed by my predecessor. I ask honourable members to bear that in mind. Mr Anthony —Not this particular exercise. Mr HAYDEN —Does the right honourable member want to hear the details of who was involved or not? There were four ASIS officers, six ASIS trainees and two members of the Army from Headquarters, 1 Commando Regiment which is detached to Swan Island. The actual application of the exercise involved four ASIS officers, six ASIS trainees and one Army member. I have two things to say about the Army member, who is a sergeant. Firstly, his role was to remain in the foyer of the hotel and, should any untoward development take place, to advise people on a higher floor. All I can say is that he was overtaken by events. My colleague the Minister for Defence has been most attentive and importunate in asking me to explain why these members of the Army were out of the immediate control and authority of the Army and were operating with ASIS under arrangements put in place before this Government came to office. Apprehended by the police were two ASIS officers and three ASIS trainees. Not apprehended were two ASIS officers, three trainees and the Army observer. I do not believe I can properly add any more to the matter at this stage. I believe I have gone more than far enough in an effort to accommodate the understandable concern of Premier Cain and the need to provide more information to this Parliament. I believe we must respect the inquiry which is currently under way. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Honourable Anil Gayan, Minister of External Affairs, Tourism and Emigration in the Government of Mauritius. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr FISHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Has the Federal Government reached a decision concerning funding and support for the Australian Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Sports Federation's submission to stage the 1988 Disabled Olympic Games in Canberra? If it has not, when will a favourable decision be made in light of the fact that the Federation must make its final presentation to the world selection committee in Innsbruck in January of next year? Mr JOHN BROWN —The Government is presently examining the proposition. The decision properly rests with the Minister for Territories and Local Government, who will have responsibility for the Games if they are staged in Canberra. All I am prepared to say is that this Government is very favourably disposed towards the staging of the paraplegic olympics in Canberra, particularly in our bicentennial year. As 13 per cent of Australians suffer some handicap of some kind it would obviously be a very reasonable proposition to Australia's handicapped people if that function took place in Canberra. We will be making every effort we can, within the limits of economic feasibility, to see that those Games are staged. Mr Fisher —Will they know by January? Mr JOHN BROWN —I cannot tell the honourable member at this stage when the decision will be made. I am prepared to say that the subject is under discussion . Mr KEOGH —Can the Minister for Housing and Construction give the House information on the number of applications which have been received under the first home owners assistance scheme? Furthermore, is it a fact that his Department has been virtually deluged by the number of applications received to date and that in Queensland for example, more than three times the expected number have been lodged? If so, is the Minister able firstly to assure honourable members that action will be taken to overcome the tremendous work load which I believe is currently and seriously affecting the morale of the officers handling the applications and, secondly, to ensure that the time for processing applications will not be allowed to increase because of this heavy work load? Mr HURFORD —My answer to the honourable member's question is a mixture of good news and some indifferent news. The good news is that there have been 17,000 applications from over 180,000 first home owners scheme inquiries to my Department's offices alone in only nine weeks. To use the honourable member's word, that is a deluge in some regions but not greater than was expected in others. I hasten to add that there is no evidence at all of this excellent scheme overheating the building industry. The combination of that first home owners scheme and the Government's excellent economic management, which has led to lower interest rates, has caused the number of dwelling commencements to rise from the miserably low level of 105,000 in the last financial year. I hope that we will achieve our target of between 125,000 and 130,000 in the current year. The Government, in short, is very proud of its achievement through this scheme, and it is making a big contribution to the employment growth of over 80,000 net new jobs that have been created since last April. The less than good news is that the large number of applications in some regions has caused my Department's offices to be severely taxed. I take this opportunity of extending my thanks to so many officers who have given such wonderful service to the public. As I have moved around from Townsville to Perth in the last few weeks there has been nothing but praise from the general public, builders, bankers and building society people for the quality of the service being given in spite of the resources of the officers being taxed. We have already turned our minds to overcoming the problem. We are in negotiation with the Public Service Board for some more permanent positions; we are redeploying staff from other areas on a temporary basis; we are retaining staff on loan from the Department of Social Security in relation to the home savings grant scheme; and we have engaged a number of temporary staff. We are very keen that the good service that has been given should continue and that the turnaround target of about two weeks for applications should be achieved. In other words, we want to convert even the indifferent news to good news because this scheme is a great success. The public is pleased with it and it is helping to get this country moving again. Mr GROOM —I preface my question to the Prime Minister, which concerns north-west Tasmania, by reminding him of a statement he made at the Sydney Opera Theatre on 16 February 1983: I am not in the business and the Labor Party is not in the business of making promises that cannot be fulfilled. I ask: Before the election did the Prime Minister promise that a Labor government would upgrade the Wynyard Airport? Did the Prime Minister subsequently announce that this promise could not be fulfilled because of the size of the deficit? If that is so, why did the deficit not also prevent the Prime Minister announcing new spending initiatives in Queensland, the Northern Territory and overseas? If the Prime Minister still maintains that the deficit is the reason for this broken promise, will he now assure the House that the Wynyard Airport will be upgraded as soon as funds become available. Mr HAWKE —The facts ought to be well known by this time, even to the honourable member for Braddon. Certain dates are relevant. The honourable member referred to 16 February. I ask him to remember 2 March, because on that day I had the foresight to enter a caveat, based upon the proposition that the people now on the opposite side of the House may not be telling the truth. I said then, on 2 March, here in this city at the National Press Club, that if we won the election , as everyone expected then that we would, and found on assuming government that they had not been telling the truth and we had inherited a worse fiscal situation than they had been telling the people of Australia existed, there would have to be a review of all that we had said. Fortunately, that was said on Wednesday, 2 March, prior to the election. It is a matter of record that the cautionary note that I sounded on 2 March was well taken because in fact the people now sitting opposite had then, in their last days of power, lied to the tune of $3.6 billion. So the people of Australia have readily accepted from that time the fact that this Government had to review the undertakings that it had made. In the process of undertaking that review, the upgrading of the Wynyard Airport, to which the honourable member referred, was one of the items that had to be reviewed. I simply make the point that on all the evidence the people of Australia as a whole are registering their approval of the course of action that has been taken by this Government. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. In view of the historical significance of and the emotional ties surrounding the award of the Queen's Medal to the winner of the Army Shoot, will the Minister take steps to revoke the decision to discontinue that award? Mr SCHOLES —I am aware of the concern which surrounded the non-award of the Queen 's Medal at the RAAF and Army Shoots. With the special Minister of State I have had discussions with the Prime Minister about the medal, which, incidentally, has a significant historical association with the Australian armed forces, and arrangements are now being made for the award to be made to the winners. Mr RUDDOCK —Has the Minister for Territories and Local Government been apprised of the urgent need for repairs to the Cowarra Dam on the upper reaches of the Bredbo River? Is it true that in the event of an unusually heavy rainstorm there could be a partial collapse and possible pollution with tailings as far as the Murrumbidgee River? Has New South Wales, contrary to advice available to the Minister, formed the opinion that a possible dam collapse involves a minimal risk? What action will the Minister be taking, either independently or in concert with his New South Wales colleagues, to overcome this significant risk to the Australian Capital Territory and its waterways? Mr UREN —I have not been informed of the seriousness of this matter. I will take it up with my Department and certainly with the New South Wales authority concerned. To date I have had no reports on the matter from my Department, but I will examine it and report back to the honourable member. Mr MILTON —Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware that protesters have blockaded bulldozers in far north Queensland to stop a road being cut through the Cape Tribulation National Park on Cape York Peninsula, which is claimed to be the largest refuge of tropical lowland rain forest remaining in Australia? Is the Minister aware that the Queensland Labor Parliamentary Caucus and the Aboriginal Development Commission have called for a halt to the road construction until a management plan for the park is developed? In view of the fact that the proposed road construction site will destroy sacred Aboriginal sites and upset the ecological balance of the nation's largest rain forest which contains several-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should come to his question. A reasonable amount of information is allowed to be given to make a question intelligible, but I think the honourable member is going a bit too far. I ask him to come to his question. Mr MILTON —Will the Minister inform the House of the action that the Federal Government has taken or intends to take to prevent such wilful and irresponsible destruction? Mr COHEN —I am aware of the value of the Cape Tribulation area. I have been made aware of it by members such as the honourable member for La Trobe and the whole environment movement. I am also aware of the damage likely to be done to the fringing reefs off Cape Tribulation. This is causing a great deal of concern to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I have telexed the Premier of Queensland asking him to intervene with the Douglas Shire Council and seeking a delay of proceedings for some time so that it will be possible to negotiate some action on the Commonwealth's behalf. The problem we face is that the Douglas Shire Council announced its intention to proceed only recently. The bulldozers it has had poised there are now in action, as the saying goes, and are proceeding to bulldoze the track up from Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield. The telexed request to the Premier to try to delay things has been rejected. I visited Cairns recently and with the help of the honourable member for Leichhardt I met the President of the Douglas Shire Council, Councillor Miojo. It seems that both councillor Miojo and the Premier are determined to proceed with this action. They say it is because they want to provide a track for the Aborigines of Bloomfield. I must say that I am fascinated with this newfound concern of the Premier of Queensland and also of the Douglas Shire Council for this handful of Aborigines who live at Bloomfield. I must say that I welcome that change of heart, but I suspect that there are other motives for getting that track through. There is an alternative which we would like to put to the Shire, possibly in the form of an offer of some funds to supplement what it is about to spend in that area to upgrade the Cairns Regional Electricity Board track, which is a route that I flew over the week before last. It is a quite adequate track well back from the coast. Mr Porter —You saw it well from the air, I bet. Mr COHEN —That is right; flying 500 feet above it, as a matter of fact. We take great risks to make sure that this country is well governed. So we have sought to come up with an offer. We have asked the Queensland Government to reconsider, to delay proceedings and to give the Commonwealth an opportunity to put a couple of alternatives because it will be a great tragedy if this track goes ahead. Mr HUNT —Is the Minister for Health aware that his Department has decided that quarantine waste from overseas aircraft and ships is no longer to be disposed of as soon as possible after unloading in Australia? Is he also aware that this waste is now to be transported overland to major disposal facilities or to be dumped at sea? Can the Minister assure the House and the primary producers of Australia that quarantine waste will be safe in all circumstances; for example, if the transporting vehicle is involved in a major road accident? Where will quarantine waste from overseas aircraft landing at Alice Springs be transported for disposal? Will the Minister ensure that the National Health and Medical Research Council approves the new method of quarantine waste disposal? Dr BLEWETT —The changes that have been made in quarantine disposal have been the result of very thorough investigation and assessment. We are convinced that the new forms of disposal adequately safeguard the interests of the rural producers of this country. In relation to the specific point about the disposal of aircraft waste in Alice Springs, I will try to get a specific answer for the honourable member. Mrs KELLY —Does the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment intend to move the administrative structure of the Australia Council to Canberra? Is it a fact that the staff of the Australia Council has been engaged in a work to rules campaign? Has the Minister responded to this campaign? What effect has the campaign had on the output of the Council? How many complaints has the Minister received from arts groups on the operation of the Council? Mr COHEN —There have been some problems with the Australia Council. I think most of those problems were resolved when the Council received extra staff. Right from day one Dr Timothy Pascoe made it clear that as a result of the previous Government's squeeze on the funds of the Australia Council staff numbers were cut from about 150 to 103. Staff cuts occurred at the lower echelons. The number of typists, clerks and stenographers had been even more severely cut. It was a critical situation. The Council functioned for a long time without proper back- up staff. I made representations to the Minister for Finance on a number of occasions and he finally came up with the numbers and we were able to provide extra staff. The problem is that in the interim period of some months the staff went on a work to rules campaign which meant that the business of the Australia Council was disrupted for some time. Another part of the question concerned whether the Australia Council is to move to Canberra. This is a long, involved problem. As I mentioned in a previous answer some weeks ago, a great deal of pressure was put on me by Melbourne cultural aficionados who believed that as a result of the Australia Council's position in Sydney over a decade or so there had been a bias in the grants in favour of Sydney artists and that Melbourne was losing out to Sydney which had become the cultural centre of Australia. Looking at the Leader of the Opposition , I can understand why. Mr Peacock —That myth was destroyed with your appointment. Mr COHEN —But I came from Gosford. This matter was raised again at the cultural Ministers conference and a working party was set up to explore this and a number of other matters. The report has not yet come to me. I do not want to pre-empt that report, but no decision has been made. As the Council wanted to move nearer to the heart of Sydney-it was not satisfied with North Sydney-to get to the centre where the people of Sydney now are I facetiously suggested that it should move to a nice old factory out near the sewerage works at Parramatta and that it might care to get out amongst the workers and work there. Honourable members interjecting- Mr COHEN —My sense of humour was not appreciated. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is the recent increase of 5.5 per cent in New South Wales parliamentary salaries a breach of the prices and incomes accord? If not, why not? Mr WILLIS —The increase of 5 1/2 per cent paid to New South Wales members of parliament was a decision of the Remuneration Tribunal for New South Wales parliamentarians as accepted by the New South Wales Government. The basis of the 5 1/2 per cent, as I understand it, was 4.3 per cent for the national wage increase, and also New South Wales public servants recently received, as part of an anomalies conference procedure, an increase of 4 per cent which was the delayed part of the community catch-up from last year. There have been a number of- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to wait until the House comes to order, and then he may answer the question. Mr WILLIS —A number of cases have already been processed through the anomalies conference. Mr Tuckey —Neville has to get his pension entitlements as high as possible. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor defies the Chair. I warn him to cease interjecting. Mr WILLIS —A number of cases have been processed through the anomalies conferences at a Federal level, resulting in increases in a number of cases, mostly in the order of community catch-up. That was the basis of the pay increase of 4 per cent for New South Wales public servants; that is, catch-up for the community round of increases which occurred in 1982. The decision of the Remuneration Tribunal was that New South Wales MPs were entitled to that 4 per cent as well as the national wage increase. In all the circumstances the Tribunal felt that it was unwise to give that amount and that it should break the nexus which had been traditionally established between New South Wales MPs and the New South Wales Public Service and give parliamentarians only an additional 1.2 per cent. In regard to all of that, at the Federal level it was not the Government's view that we should receive an increase which had, in fact, been given to Federal public servants who received the full community flow-on for 1982. Federal MPs have not received that increase. We could have, if we had used that argument, argued for an additional 7 per cent. The Government's view was that that should not apply and that we should have accepted the 4.3 per cent . I would have preferred that the New South Wales Government made the same decision. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was consideration given at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to the plight of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka? Mr HAWKE —In the course of the recent CHOGM meeting in New Delhi the matter was raised in the general debate on international security. It also arose in bilateral discussions I had with the President of Sri Lanka and with the Prime Minister of India. I am not able to say with confidence that the problem will be resolved. The important thing I can say is that I derived the very strong impression from the conversations I had with the President and the Prime Minister that there is the will on the part of the two relevant leaders to try to secure a satisfactory and, as far as possible, peaceable resolution of what has indeed been a tragic situation within Sri Lanka. The Commonwealth heads of government as such made no decision. However, I repeat that I formed the impression that the intention of the President of Sri Lanka and of the Prime Minister of India, as far as India is concerned with the problem, as it is, to do all in their power to secure a peaceful resolution of a potentially very tragic situation. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, follows from the Prime Minister's answer but does not directly relate to the previous question. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was there any discussion, formal or informal, on the readmission of Pakistan to the Commonwealth? Mr HAWKE —There was no formal discussion about the matter and I was not involved in any bilateral discussions. That is not to say that there may not have been some others. I repeat that there was no formal discussion on the agenda and I was not involved in any bilateral discussions on it. Mr SIMMONS —Is the Minister for Communications aware of claims being made by certain individuals and organisations that a new telecommunications tower being constructed on Mount Canobolas in central western New South Wales will make the city of Orange a nuclear target? Will the Minister inform the House of the exact purpose of this telecommunications tower? Mr DUFFY —I have seen the newspaper articles referred to by the honourable member for Calare suggesting that the Telecom Australia relay tower could be used for military purposes and that it could be a target in the event of a nuclear war. The fact of the matter is that the tower is part of a radio communications link that will be used purely for scientific purposes and for civilian communications . It is not associated with strategic or defence requirements. Telecom is erecting three new radio stations, one of which is to be located at Mount Canobolas, in order to provide a radio link between the radio telescope at Parkes and the deep space tracking station outside Canberra. Once established, the radio communications station will also serve a microwave repeater station for the telecommunications network. It will also accommodate other facilities operated by Telecom for the general community. I am informed that Telecom has consulted also with interested environmental bodies which have been interested in this matter, that it has prepared an impact study and that Australian Heritage Commission approval has also been obtained. In respect of the main point raised by the honourable member, I assure him that the tower referred to is not part of any military exercise and is in fact merely a part of the radio communications link. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. In light of his decision to scrap the Skyhawk fighters and the Tracker aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm and the announcement this week that the Wessex helicopters are to be grounded as a result of the tragic accident in Bass Strait, will he ensure that every possible priority is given to the replacement of the Wessex to ensure that the Fleet Air Arm under his administration does not suffer yet another aircraft shortfall because of his own inactivities? Mr SCHOLES —It is an interesting question. The Wessex are 21 years old. They were 14 years old when the former Government came into office which would seem to indicate that some progress ought to have been made by now towards their replacement. Certainly the tragic accident involving the Wessex helicopter in Bass Strait has necessitated the grounding of all our Wessex helicopters. This is normal procedure after an accident, pending investigation of the cause. Since the Wessex helicopters came into service ten have been lost, eight of those through various forms of engine failure. This rate of attrition is partly due to the fact that they are single engined helicopters. If they are over water and suffer a serious engine problem it is obvious that they will end up in the water . However, this is the first occasion on which there has been loss of life. The former Minister will be well aware that the Royal Australian Navy currently has helicopter programs under consideration. The program for acquisition of a helicopter for the FFG is at the stage of final definition, with two helicopters having recently been announced as short listed contenders. It is anticipated that the choice of helicopter will be made in the very near future and contract negotiations will then start. This Government, on coming to office, was faced with the sharp reality that a good deal of the equipment which the Australian defence forces are operating is well beyond its reasonable life and that little progress has been made towards its replacement. This Government will move towards replacement of obsolete equipment as soon as is practicable and within the funds available. Mr Sinclair —That is why you cut it back by $160m! Mr SCHOLES —The honourable gentleman may say what he wishes. The facts are that whilst honourable gentlemen opposite are great at talking about defence, they have a very poor record of performance. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973, I present the Commonwealth Grants Commission 50th report 1983. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation, Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to regulation 23E of the Army and Air Force Canteens Service Regulations 1981, I present the Army and Air Force Canteens Service Board of Management annual report for 1982-83, together with the Auditor-General's report and the audited financial statements and balance sheets. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1982-83 of the Director-General of Health. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Communications annual report for 1982-83. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations) —For the information of honourable members I present the Special Broadcasting Service (Interim) report for 1982-83. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1983, I present the Australian Broadcasting Commission annual report for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 52 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, I present the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service annual report for 1982-83, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present a report on A National Conservation Strategy for Australia-Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development- proposed by a conference held in Canberra, June 1983, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960, I present the National Library of Australia annual report for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, I present the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region annual report for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980, I present the Australian War Memorial annual report for 1981-82. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 6 (3) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, I present the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority report for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the summary record of proceedings of the twelfth meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers held in Alice Springs, Northern Territory, 7 July 1983. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the summary record of proceedings of the fourteenth meeting of the Australian Environment Council held in Hobart, Tasmania, 2 June 1982. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the summary record of proceedings of the fifteenth meeting of the Australian Environment Council held in Alice Springs, Northern Territory, 6 July 1983. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Capital Territory Canberra Retail Markets Trust annual report 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Territories and Local Government annual report for 1982-83. Mr PORTER(Barker) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PORTER —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PORTER —In Friday morning's Sydney Morning Herald there was a report of the hearings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs regarding the inquiry it is undertaking into the problems of asbestos mining at Baryulgil. In that article an allegation was made that certain members of the Committee, beimg members from the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Labor Party, had boycotted the hearing in Sydney. The relevant part of the article states: The Aboriginal Legal Service spokesman, Mr Robert Tickner, claimed that outside pressure had sparked a boycott of the hearing by half of the eight-man committee . Mr Tickner said two Liberal MPs, James Porter and Neil Andrew, Labor MP, Lloyd O'Neil, and Queensland National, Ian Cameron, had failed to arrive. I was asked by a journalist on Friday whether that was the case and I replied that it was not; that we had prior commitments. The article goes on: But Mr Porter said he and his three absent colleagues had no case to answer for non-attendance at the Sydney hearing. I was due to fly out to Roxby Downs this morning with Neil Andrew and some other MPs but the airfield was flooded and we had to stay here, he said. That was a prior commitment and by the time I found out we weren't going to Roxby Downs it was 7.30 in the morning and too late to catch a plane to Sydney. The allegation is that outside pressure had sparked a boycott of the hearing by half of the eight-man committee. That allegation is totally without foundation. In fact, I and the honourable member for Wakefield have already been with the Committee to Baryulgil. The Committee knew that certain members had prior commitments and would not be able to attend this particular hearing. I consider the allegation that a number of members of this House were not only subject to such improper influences, but also failed to carry out their duties as members of parliament to be outrageous and a breach of the privileges of this Parliament . Personally I do not intend to raise it as a matter of privilege, but rather intend to treat the allegation with the contempt it deserves. I add that insofar as this report harms the reputation of the members involved, those members can consider their position regarding the publication. Finally, Mr Tickner, who is quoted in that report, has sent me a telegram which states: Reported statements by me alleging boycott of asbestos committee hearing by yourself denied absolutely. No such suggestion made at any time. On the basis of Mr Tickner's telegram, it appears that the article has also attributed the comments to the wrong person. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies on Term of Reference (c). Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of Term or Reference ( c) of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, and (2) That the report be printed. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-The Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies has reported on that part of its terms of reference which called for it to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the expulsion from Australia of Mr Valeriy Ivanov, First Secretary, Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr David Combe's involvement in those circumstances and the actions of the Government in the matter. Mr Justice Hope was required, under the Commission that was issued to him on 17 May 1983, to report on these matters in advance of his more general report on the activities of Australia's security and intelligence agencies. Major Findings The findings of the Royal Commissioner are extensive, balanced and detailed. They amount to a complete endorsement of the actions my Government has taken since we first became aware of the matter on 20 April this year. Among His Honour's central findings are the following: Valeriy Ivanov was a KGB officer, and the Government was justified in expelling him as it did on 22 April; David Combe's relationship with Ivanov was such as to have serious implications for national security; the surveillance of Mr Combe authorised on 21 April was appropriate, and was terminated as soon as it reasonably should have been; it was proper for the National and International Security Committee-NISC-and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), acting on national security grounds, to have secured a decision from Cabinet and the Ministry that Ministers should not have professional dealings with Mr Combe; and the Government acted properly in its dealings with Mr Combe on 11 May, and was not obliged to give him an opportunity to state his case at any earlier time. A full summary of the 24 issues addressed by His Honour and the answers given to them, is set out in chapter 9 of the report, and I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that this goes somewhat beyond the guidelines we have issued before; but, in view of the importance of the report and the way in which it is to be handled, I think it would be quite fair to incorporate the document. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Chapter 9 ANSWERS TO ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUES 1. In the light of the evidence and my findings and conclusions, I give the following answers to the Issues: Issue 1 On the evidence available to ASIO on 20 April 1983, was ASIO's assessment of Ivanov as a Soviet intelligence officer- (a) correct; or (b) reasonably open to it? Answer 1 (a) Yes. Issue 2 On the evidence which was available to ASIO on 20th April 1983, was ASIO 's conclusion that Ivanov's relationship with Combe was such as to have serious implications for national security- (a) correct; or (b) reasonably open to it? Answer 2 (a) Yes. Issue 2A Was Combe's relationship with Ivanov in fact such as to give rise to serious implications for national security as at 20th April 1983? Answer 2A Yes. Issue 3 If yes to 2 (a) or 2 (b), what were the implications for national security? Answer (i) Mr Ivanov might have succeeded in recruiting Mr Combe clandestinely to obtain and to hand over confidential information or confidential documents of value to the Soviet Government to the detriment of Australian interests. (ii) Mr Ivanov might have succeeded in recruiting Mr Combe to act clandestinely as an agent of influence to try to persuade members of the ALP, including Ministers, to adopt policies or to act in a way favourable to the Soviet Government. (iii) the relationship between Mr Ivanov and Mr Combe was about to become clandestine and ASIO would no longer be in a position to monitor it, either effectively or at all. Issue 4 If Yes to 2 (a) or 2 (b), should ASIO have attempted to acquaint Combe with its conclusion before communicating with the Prime Minister? Answer No. Issue 5 Did the Director-General of ASIO act properly in communicating with the Prime Minister? Answer Yes-although it would have been appropriate, because of the delay involved in securing an appointment with the Prime Minister, for the Director- General to have communicated earlier with the Attorney-General. Issue 6 Did the Prime Minister act properly in convening the meetings of the National and International Security Committee which were held on 20th and 21st April 1983? Answer Yes. Issue 7 Did the NIS Committee decide, and was it reasonably open to the NIS Committee to decide: (a) to request the Soviet Ambassador to make arrangements for Ivanov to leave Australia within seven days? (b) that the Prime Minister should inform other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Combe? (c) that the Leader of the Opposition should be briefed on the expulsion of Ivanov and the background thereto? (d) that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory should be advised of the relationship between Combe and Ivanov and of the activities of Combe? (e) that the Director-General of ASIO arrange for immediate surveillance of Combe by all appropriate means? Answer (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (d) Yes (e) Yes Issue 8 If Yes to 7 (a), was it proper for the Government to notify and announce the expulsion of Ivanov in the manner which it chose? Answer Yes. Issue 9 If Yes to 7 (b), should Combe have been afforded an opportunity to be heard by the Government: (a) before the NIS Committee decided that the Prime Minister should inform other Ministers; (b) at any and what time after the decision of the NIS Committee, not being a time fixed by or by reference to the making of any statement in either House of the Parliament. Answer (a) No (b) Although not required by law, it would have been appropriate for the Government to have provided such an opportunity after 4 May. The occasion of providing such an opportunity no longer existed after 12 May. (Steps to provide such an opportunity began on 2 May). Issue 10 If Yes to 7 (b), were the reasons of the NIS Committee in deciding that the Prime Minister should so inform other Ministers wholly or partly- (a) the Committee's perception of the activities of lobbyists in general? (b) Combe's position as a lobbyist having regard to the official position formerly occupied by him within the Australian Labor Party? (c) the implications for national security of the relationship between Combe and Ivanov? Answer (a) No (b) No-although the matter was discussed (c) Yes Issue 11 If Yes to 7 (c), was the briefing of the Leader of the Opposition properly carried out? Answer Yes. Issue 12 If Yes to 7 (d), was the briefing of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory properly carried out? Answer Yes. Issue 13 Was it proper for the NIS Committee, if it decided that the Prime Minister should inform other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Combe, to require that such information be given without comment on the relationship between Combe and Ivanov? Answer Yes. Issue 14 Was the surveillance of Combe: (a) duly authorised? (b) carried out by all appropriate means? (c) terminated as soon as it reasonably should have been in all the circumstances? Answer (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. Issue 15 Did the Prime Minister inform, and if so was it proper for him to inform, other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Combe: (a) by raising the matter at a Cabinet meeting on 26th April? (b) by raising the matter at a Ministry meeting on 2nd May? (c) without informing Ministers of the relationship between Combe and Ivanov? Answer (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. Issue 16 Was there any unauthorised or improper disclosure by any and what Minister of the decision to expel Ivanov before it was publicly announced? Answer (i) As part of the disclosure referred to in the answer to Issue 17, Mr Young made an unauthorised and improper disclosure on 21 April 1983; (ii) Mr Young made two unauthorised disclosures which were not improper on 22 April 1983. Issue 17 Was there any unauthorised or improper disclosure by any and what Minister of the information made available to the NIS Committee concerning the relationship between Combe and Ivanov before 11th May? Answer Mr Young made an unauthorised and improper disclosure on 21 April 1983. Issue 18 Was there any unauthorised or improper disclosure by and and what Minister of: (a) the decision of the NIS Committee that Ministers should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Combe? (b) the decision (if any) taken by Cabinet on 26th April in respect of Combe? (c) the decision (if any) taken by the Ministry on 2nd May in respect of Combe? Answer (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. Issue 19 Was it proper for the Government to acquaint Combe on 11th May with the information which had been presented to the NIS Committee and to receive a statement from him of his version of his association with Soviet officials? Answer Yes. Issue 20 If Yes to (19), was Combe, on 11th May: (a) properly acquainted with the information which had been presented to the NIS Committee; (b) given a proper opportunity to present his version of his association with Soviet officials? Answer (a) Yes-to the extent that it was appropriate to do so. (b) Yes. Issue 21 Was any and what agreement or arrangement concluded on 11th May between Combe and the Attorney-General or any other member or members of the Government as to subsequent disclosure of or comment upon Combe's connexion with Ivanov and the Government's actions in respect thereof. Answer Yes. An agreement that the Prime Minister would make an agreed statement to the House of Representatives on 11 may 1983 and that neither the Government nor Mr Combe would make any public comment on the statement or its subject matter except that a statement (to be approved by the Attorney-General) might be made by Mr Combe, about his proposed defamation action in respect of an article published in the Daily Mirror. Issue 22 If Yes to 21, did: (a) the Government (otherwise than by action or statement in Parliament); (b) Combe; (c) any other relevant person; resile in any and what way from such agreement or understanding? Answer (a) No. (b) Yes-by making public statements on the matter. (c) No. Issue 23 Should any of the answers to 7 (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) have been different, and if so, in what way, if all the facts relevant to that answer or to those answers had been available to the NIS Committee on 20th and 21st April, 1983? Answer No. Issue 24 If Yes to 2A, are there now any and if so what national security considerations which should be taken into account in deciding whether Combe's access to Ministers should be limited in any way? Answer The national security considerations which led NISC to make the decision referred to in Issue 7 (b) no longer apply and are not now relevant to Mr Combe' s access to Ministers. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Prime Minister whether there was also a suggestion that when various paragraphs were dealt with he would seek their incorporation. Mr HAWKE —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Perhaps he will proceed with that request. Mr HAWKE —Before I do so, I express my gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) for his co-operation in allowing the incorporation of that matter in Hansard. I am indebted to him. I have mentioned to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Leader of the Opposition that in my prepared address to the House, where I make assertions as to what is contained in the report I have indicated the paragraph sustaining those observations. It would be a matter of convenience if, as I go through the address, I not refer to those paragraphs but have them incorporated in Hansard. Again, I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —I think, in the circumstances of this report and the debate, that is a commonsense procedure to follow. I will allow the paragraphs to be incorporated in Hansard. Mr HAWKE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. David Combe and National Security Implications The decisions taken by NISC on 21 April were premised upon the view that the relationship between Mr Combe and Mr Ivanov was such as to give rise to serious security concern. That was made plain in my statement to Parliament of 11 May 1983. The correctness of the view formed by NISC is confirmed beyond any doubt by Mr Justice Hope's report. The Commission has now had the benefit of much more extensive evidence that was available to the NIS Committee. While some of the material before the NIS Committee has been shown to be incomplete or erroneous, His Honour found that these errors were of no more than peripheral significance to the issues before and the decisions of the Committee. The evidence before the Commission confirmed and reinforced the case that Mr Combe was a security risk. Mr Justice Hope concludes in fact that the case against Mr Combe emerging from the additional evidence before the Commission was stronger than the case presented to NISC by ASIO on 21 April (4.110). Paragraph 4.110 reads- 4.110 I have concluded that evidence adduced before the Commission made a stronger case for action by NISC than the case presented on 21 April. The facts disclosed by the evidence would certainly have left it no less open to NISC to make the decisions which it did, and, in some respects, would have compelled it to make those decisions. The mistakes which ASIO made in presenting the case to NISC should not have been made, but they did not touch the main thrust of the case and were not matters which NISC members relied on either at all, or to any significant extent. I shall deal in turn with each of the specific errors which was made, or which was claimed on behalf of Mr Combe to have been made, by ASIO in presenting the case to the Prime Minister and to NISC. I shall also consider whether any of the decisions which NISC made on 21 April should have been different had the facts established by the evidence been put before the Committee. On the evidence before him Mr Justice Hope was satisfied that Ivanov intended, if possible, to use Mr Combe to obtain and to hand over to him information and documents illegitimately, and in the interests of the Soviet union, and to act, wittingly or unwittingly, as an agent of influence (4.103). Paragraph 4.103 reads- 4.103 I have concluded that one of the purposes of Mr Ivanov's cultivation of Mr Combe was illicit, and that to draw this inference from the evidence is not mere speculation. No doubt Mr Ivanov intended to use Mr Combe as well for legitimate purposes, as, for example, in the overt promotion of Soviet/Australian trade. However, he also intended, if possible, to use Mr Combe to obtain and to hand over to him information and documents illegitimately, and in the interests of the Soviet Union, and to act, wittingly or unwittingly, as an agent of influence . I reject the view that Mr Combe's access to Ministers and their staffs was so limited that he could not achieve any of these objectives even if he were so minded. It is common human experience that many people who possess confidential information can be induced to disclose it to others whom they know and trust. Events over the last decade in Australia demonstrate, if demonstration be necessary, that although confidential documents are not, or at least should not be, left lying about for a casual visitor to read or to take, they, or copies of them, can be obtained by somebody with the right connections and information. Mr Combe's claim to be a 'has-been' without influence cannot stand with the evidence. In particular, it is inconsistent with his recommendation in the CBA report that he be used (assuming that he told the ALP the whole story) as an overt agent of influence, to 'upscale' relations between the ALP and the CPSU. The view that Australia has no secrets that the KGB would wish to acquire, and that the KGB would not seek to influence those in this country who would reject an overt approach by its officers, can hardly stand with the continuous KGB presence and activity in Australia. To Mr Ivanov, it must have seemed that the purposes which I have described could be achieved through Mr Combe. I do not mean by this that Mr Ivanov would have thought that Mr Combe would meet every request. I mean only that he would have thought that if Mr Combe were willing, he could try, and was in a reasonably good position to succeed. Moreover, Mr Ivanov must have thought that, taken carefully, Mr Combe might be persuaded to try. Mr Combe's conversations in Moscow, and his discussion with Mr Ivanov on 4 March, would obviously have encouraged the KGB in this view. Even without the events of 3 April, it would have been clear that the KGB officer had an illicit purpose, but the disinformation given by Mr Ivanov to Mr Combe on that day, and the suggestion as to future contact, satisfy me on that matter. The disinformation was another significant step in the process of cultivation, and the obvious purpose of the suggestion as to contact was to convert the relationship between Mr Ivanov and Mr Combe from one that was relatively open to one that was concealed. Such concealment was to advance, not Mr Combe's interests, but those of the KGB. Counsel for Mr Combe suggested a number of equally possible explanations of a move to clandestinity, ranging from a desire for privacy to a desire to terminate the relationship. I reject the alternative explanations as being untenable. Mr Ivanov was obviously concerned that the relationship should become clandestine. The proper inference from that concern is that the KGB intended in the course of covert contacts, to attempt to effect an illicit purpose. One of the central features in His Honour's conclusions was the finding that the relationship between Ivanov and Mr Combe was about to become clandestine and ASIO would no longer be in a position to monitor it, either effectively or at all. The implications for national security flowing from these matters were real and serious (4.109). Paragraph 4.109 reads- 4.109 The danger to national security involved in Mr Combe's relationship with Mr Ivanov appears clearly enough from what I have already said in this Chapter and elsewhere. It was, to adopt an expression used in evidence, that Mr Combe might be 'sucked in'. If he were, he would be in a position to do considerable damage. Mr Ivanov, whether by a long and gradual cultivation, or by some shorter process culminating in an entrapment, might have succeeded in recruiting Mr Combe to obtain and hand over confidential information or documents of value to the Soviet Government, to the detriment of Australia's interests, or to act as an agent of influence to try to persuade members of the ALP, and in particular Ministers, to adopt policies, or to act in a way, favourable to the Soviet Government. Counsel for Mr Combe has trenchantly challenged the notion of ' agents of influence' but I adhere to what was said in the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security at paragraphs 44 to 49. This accords with what was said in the Second Report of the Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, page 39 (23 January 1981) that it is 'the indisputable duty of the State to protect its secrets from espionage, its information from unauthorised disclosure, its institutions from subversion and its policies from clandestine influence'. The same notion underlies the definition of 'active measures of foreign intervention ' in s. 4 of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, as 'clandestine or deceptive action taken by or on behalf of a foreign power, to promote the interests of that power'. 'Security' is also defined in s. 4 of the Act to mean 'protection of, and of the people of, the Commonwealth and the several States and Territories, from' inter alia, 'active measures of foreign intervention' which are earlier defined, and which, as I have indicated, comprehend activities of agents of influence. A similar definition was given to the expression 'foreign interference' in Recommendation 2 (b) of the Canadian Commission of Inquiry in its Second Report, p. 1067. I have already pointed out that Mr Combe recommended in the CBA Report that he should act, in effect, as an overt agent of influence, assuming that he revealed to the ALP the source of his activities. Moreover, since the relationship between Mr Combe and Mr Ivanov might have become, and, as I have found, was about to become, clandestine, ASIO would no longer be in a position to monitor it, either effectively or, possibly, at all. The implications for national security flowing from these possibilities were real and serious. The key elements in the report which, when pieced together, justify His Honour' s conclusions that Mr Combe, however unwittingly or unintentionally, was a security risk may be summarised as follows: Mr Combe had access to Ministers, and his potential access to Ministers was very considerable (4.95). Ivanov was a KGB officer; at the least, Mr Combe believed that he probably was; and his assertion that he believed no more than that Ivanov, like any other Soviet diplomat, might be KGB was not genuine (2.41, 4.94). Mr Combe's visit to the USSR in November-December 1982 was significant: He had been selected by Ivanov; he was given access to unusually high level officials in the USSR; and following his return made recommendations which, if implemented , would have involved his client, the Commercial Bureau of Australia, CBA, in political or propagandist activities of benefit to the Soviet Union (4.45). Ivanov was cultivating Mr Combe for, inter alia, illicit purposes; in the course of that cultivation, and on written instructions from the highest levels in the Soviet Union, Ivanov-though not himself having any responsibility for trade matters-proposed to Mr Combe that he should work in trade on behalf of the Soviet Government (4.70). Mr Combe suspected that Ivanov might have had some ulterior illicit purpose (4. 108). Mr Combe's assertion that he soon lost all interest in the Moscow trade proposal was deliberately false (4.93). Evidence of this included his conversation on 16 March with Mr Alparslan, a NSW Government trade official, that he had been appointed as a representative of the Soviet Central Committee and was liaising with a political officer of the Soviet Embassy: Mr Combe's denial that he had made this statement was deliberately false (4.76). Mr Combe would be capable, on the evidence of his disclosure to Ivanov of the matter relating to the CBA report, of betraying a confidence either unwittingly or quite deliberately (4.20). Mr Combe's statements in evidence about the deterioration in his relationship with Mr Ivanov-that during March he came to regard him as a ''creep''-were deliberately untrue (4.92). On 3 April Mr Ivanov told Combe that his house was bugged, his phone was tapped and that he had been under surveillance since he arrived back from the USSR; further, that he should not get in touch with Ivanov, should maintain a low profile, and that Ivanov would contact him by other means (4.81), 4.85): On his own admission, Mr Combe in fact accepted Ivanov's proposal that their relationship should henceforth be conducted in a clandestine fashion (4.106). Mr Combe's failure to report Ivanov's warning points to an appreciation by him that he might be seen to have been compromised by Ivanov (4.107). While in April 1983 Mr Combe would have rejected any request to spy for the Soviet Union, there is a doubt whether he could have withstood a long and subtle process of cultivation and whether he appreciated the dangers inherent in his relationship with Ivanov (4.107). Mr Combe allowed his ambition to override his judgment and to be led into a position where his loyalty could become suspect: The consequent danger was certainly apparent and probably real (4.108). Paragraph 4.95 reads- 4.95 Mr Combe denied that he had the degree of access to Ministers and their staffs which ASIO assumed he had. In support of this denial he provided evidence of what he claimed to be the limited access which he had enjoyed up to 20 April. It must be remembered, however, that the Ministers had been appointed less than six weeks before, on 11 March, and that the Economic Summit had taken place between that date and 20 April. Mr Combe does not appear to have had any difficulty in contacting Ministers or members of their staffs during that period , except when he tried to raise Mr Matheson's affairs with Mr Bowen. Thus, when, on 6 April at Peaches Restaurant, the question arose as to what the new Government would do about the sanctions, Mr Combe immediately rang Mr Evans, the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary, to find out. Conversations which Mr Combe had after 21 April, including one with Mrs J. Taggart on 28 April, show the extent of his access and what he could arrange. It is true having regard to what is now known of the attitude of certain Ministers to lobbyists, he may have encountered difficulty in seeing those Ministers, but this was not known to him, much less Mr Ivanov, at the time. Mr Ivanov must have seen Mr Combe as having greater potential access than any other person with whom he was likely to become friendly. In fact, whatever particular limitations there might have been, Mr Combe's potential access was still very considerable. Indeed, Mr Combe complains that his access was of great value to him, and that the Government, in taking it away, has greatly diminished his earning capacity. Paragraph 2.41 reads- 2.41 As will become apparent in later sections of my report, there were certain errors and misconceptions contained in some of the information provided by Mr Barnett to the Prime Minister at their meeting in the afternoon of 20 April. The nature and significance of those errors and misconceptions will be examined later. Before turning to the response of the Government to ASIO's case, I make the following observations of ASIO's handling of the matter up to and including Mr Barnett's meeting with the Prime Minister on 20 April- (i) ASIO's detection and identification of Mr Ivanov as a KGB officer less than 12 months after he arrived in Australia was achieved through a process of careful and professional analysis. Its identification of Mr Ivanov was correct and was confirmed to be so in early 1983. (ii) When ASIO formed its opinion as to Mr Ivanov's intentions in regard to Mr Combe, it adopted a cautious and objective attitude to Mr Combe's relationship with Mr Ivanov. It was conscious of Mr Combe's position both in political circles and the community generally, and avoided taking any precipitate action which might have unfairly affected Mr Combe. An example of this occurred on 3 February 1983 when the Director-General of Security deliberately refrained from mentioning Mr Combe's name in a routine briefing of the former Attorney-General, Senator the Honourable P. Durack, during which the activities of Mr Ivanov were outlined. (iii) There is no evidence that, before 21 April 1983, Mr Combe was the target of any surveillance by ASIO. To the extent to which ASIO made observations of Mr Combe's movements and activities, they were entirely incidental to its surveillance of Mr Ivanov and other Soviet officials. (iv) The Director-General of Security acted responsibly and within the provisions of sub-s.17 (1) of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 in deciding, on 5 April, to notify the Prime Minister of his concern. However, after he was advised that the Prime Minister would be unable to see him for almost two weeks it would have been proper for him to have sought an appointment with the Attorney-General, who was the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act. It is now clear that no damage to the national security occurred as a result of the delay in briefing the Prime Minister. However, this judgment is made with hindsight. The potential damage to national security from delay was serious. (v) On the material available to ASIO on 20 April there is no doubt that its conclusion that Mr Ivanov's relationship with Mr Combe was such as to have serious implications for national security was correct. Those implications are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. (vi) The evidence satisfies me that it was reasonably open for ASIO to conclude that there were grave dangers in attempting to acquaint Mr Combe with any of the relevant material before communicating with the Government. Not only were the opinions about Mr Combe's likely reaction to such an approach overwhelmingly against making it, but the information which ASIO gleaned from his conversation of 4 March with Mr Ivanov entitled it to conclude that Mr Combe would probably be hostile to an approach from ASIO. ASIO's view was confirmed by the Prime Minister who rejected the notion of counselling Mr Combe on security grounds amongst other reasons. (vii) with the qualifications indicated in 4.110 to 4.113 and Appendix V Mr Barnett's presentation to the Prime Minister was adequate, objective and fair. He was aware of the delicacy required in putting to a Prime Minister that a close political colleague had become involved with a Soviet spy. He showed an appreciation of the sensitivity of the whole matter and did not fail to declare the interest of ASIO in achieving the public expulsion of Mr Ivanov with concomitant publicity and kudos for ASIO. Paragraph 4.94 reads- 4.94 The third statement, that Mr Combe believed that Mr Ivanov was no more likely to be a KGB officer than any other Soviet diplomat, was staunchly adhered to by him. Thus, he said that his response, 'one has always assumed that' when Mr David Barnett said to him on the telephone on 26 April, 'you've known he was KGB since you first met him', was no more than an expression of this belief. After that remark to Mr Barnett, Mr Combe went on to say that 'anyone who thinks that there's something revelatory about the fact the KGB operates in Australia believes in fucking Easter bunnies'. I do not accept Mr Combe's assertion that this statement as to Mr Ivanov's position was his genuine belief. The matter has to be looked at in the light of Mr Combe's extensive political experience, his considerable political perception, and his wide knowledge and experience of the Soviet Union and its diplomats. In this light, he would have seen Mr Ivanov, although only a First Secretary, as having qualities which marked him out from other Soviet diplomats, and as having many of the characteristics which might be expected of a KGB officer. Mr Ivanov's access to information, his ability to get things done, his readiness to become involved outside his ostensible area of responsibility in matters of trade, and his relative flexibility in discussing Soviet affairs, all of which led Mr Combe to think that he was 'more than he appeared to be', must have caused Mr Combe to consider whether he was a KGB officer. Finally, when Mr Ivanov told him that he might be (or was likely to be) expelled as Soviet diplomats in other countries had been expelled, Mr Combe, knowing that those diplomats had been expelled because of their intelligence activities, made no enquiry as to why he should be a candidate for expulsion. I do not accept that it did not cross his mind that a possible reason for Mr Ivanov's expulsion, if it were to happen, would be that he was a KGB officer. I have concluded that, at the least, Mr Combe believed that Mr Ivanov was probably a KGB officer. Paragraph 4.45 reads- 4.45 If implemented, the first four recommendations would have involved CBA in political or propagandist activities of benefit to the Soviet Union which Mr Combe 'regarded as matters the Soviets wanted to achieve'. None of the suggested activities had been indicated by any of the Soviet officials with whom Mr Combe spoke in Moscow, to be something in which CBA should become involved. The only comment from which any such suggestion could be inferred was that of Mr Parasteyev about the lack of CBA participation in the USSR-Australia Friendship Society in Moscow. Mr Parasteyev had nothing to do with trade, and Mr Smeliakov, who did, made no such suggestion. However Mr Combe held the view that all important decisions were made within the Central Committee and were politically motivated. He formed the opinion that CBA's position would be maintained and enhanced if it were to become involved in these activities. Paragraph 4.70 reads- 4.70 It seems clear that Mr Ivanov displayed greater interest in Mr Combe between 7 January 1983 and 4 March 1983. Before the latter date, officials in Moscow had taken the opportunity to observe Mr Combe closely. Presumably they made some assessment of him in the light of what he said to them, coupled with any previous knowledge of him and his activities. Then, on 3 February, the Australian election was called, and, in the course of the month, it appeared highly probable that the ALP would take over the government. At some time before 4 March Mr Ivanov received written instructions, initiated at the highest level in the Soviet Union, to ask Mr Combe to work for the Soviet Union. In the light of the conversation of 4 March the KGB undoubtedly would have regarded Mr Combe as a very good person to cultivate with a view to his ultimate recruitment as an agent. Whether the process would be successful would have to be determined in the future, but nothing would be lost by trying, and the benefits from a successful cultivation would be great. Pursuant to his instructions, Mr Ivanov, with whom Mr Combe had not discussed CBA or its trade problems before 4 March, took a significant step in the cultivation. Paragraph 4.108 reads- 4.108 On the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Combe suspected that Mr Ivanov might have had some ulterior illicit purpose, but was confident that he would recognise, and could handle, any danger or trap, and reject any inducement. He was extremely anxious to become involved in Soviet/Australian trade which he saw as potentially lucrative, and which would involve him closely in Soviet/Australian relations. His preference was to work directly for the Soviet Government, but, until that could be arranged, he was prepared to achieve that end by working for CBA. He saw the use of Mr Ivanov and a political approach as the most effective way to ensure his own participation. He saw an opportunity, and went for it. His ambition overriding his judgment, he allowed himself to be led into a position where his loyalty could become suspect. The consequent danger was certainly apparent, and probably real. The extent of the danger turned on his ability to perceive it and extricate himself before it was too late. Mr Combe may well have done this, but there was a reasonable chance, obviously perceived by the KGB, that he might not. I add that if Mr Combe did not suspect that Mr Ivanov might have had an illicit purpose-a state of mind which I consider would show great naivety on Mr Combe's part-the risk of his becoming compromised was as great as, if not greater than, I believe it to have been. Paragraph 4.93 reads- 4.93 The second statement, that about his lack of interest in Mr Ivanov's Moscow proposal, is likewise contrary to the evidence. Mr Combe said in evidence that he showed enthusiasm for the proposal on 4 March, and that he was looking forward to it coming to fruition. On 4 March, Mr Combe sought Mr Ivanov's assent to him, Combe, concluding a contract with CBA on 6 March. This was a positive indication of Mr Combe's continuing interest in the Moscow proposal. Further, Mr Combe's contract with CBA was one which he could determine after three months if he wished, a delay which would not be likely to affect Mr Combe's ability to enter into an agreement with the Soviet Union. At no time during March or April did Mr Combe tell Mr Ivanov he was no longer interested, even though his evidence is that Mr Ivanov reported progress with the matter to him on 21 March. Moreover, it was again suggested by Mr Ivanov on 3 April, that Mr Combe should meet the representative of GKES. When Mr Combe told Mr Alparslan on 16 March that he was the representative of the Central Committee, he must have had in mind a proposal in which he was still interested. Mr Ivanov's statement to Mr Combe on 6 March about the Soviet Government's preference for government to government trading, together with the new Australian Government's preference for trading arrangements of that kind, would have indicated to Mr Combe that his proposed retainer from CBA might be shortlived, and that any arrangement which he might make with the Soviet Union would have better long-term prospects. There was thus every inducement for Mr Combe to remain interested, quite apart from his fervent desire to improve Soviet/Australian relations, which he hoped his work for the Soviet Union would do. Furthermore, on 29 April, he had a discussion with Mr Toohey about the Ivanov affair and his own connection with it . He gave Mr Toohey further information on 12 May. Mr Combe agreed that the relevant parts of the article written by Mr Toohey which appeared in the ' National Times', for the week 13 to 19 May, were based on what he had told Mr Toohey. In that article, it was reported that Mr Combe had 'discussed doing work for the Russians of a trade representation nature', and that 'no specific figure was mentioned and no final arrangement was ever entered into. Nor was it clear just what Soviet trade company Combe would be representing'. Mr Combe is also reported as saying that 'it might have been possible for the Americans to have picked up some draft document in which he was to have been paid for working for some Soviet trade organisation' and that 'he was not aware that any such document existed, but would not be responsible for whatever boasts Ivanov might be making about progress in boosting trade or in getting along well with Combe on a more general basis'. There is no hint in any part of the article that Mr Combe had lost interest in the proposal. I do not believe Mr Combe's statement that he had lost interest in it, and I believe that his evidence to that effect was deliberately false. Paragraph 4.76 reads- 4.76 On the following day, 16 March, Mr Combe had a conversation with Mr J. Alparslan, who was then a trade and investment adviser to the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Development and Decentralisation, the Honourable D. Day. In this capacity, Mr Alparslan had contact from time to time with Mr Fasham and officers of Pactra. The conversation between Mr Combe and Mr Alparslan was directed mainly to the reasons for what Mr Combe claimed was the preference shown by the New South Wales Government to Mr Fasham and Pactra. Mr Combe told Mr Alparslan that the Soviet officials 'were not really all that interested in Pactra or in the Commercial Bureau by virtue of what they considered to be the financial weaknesses of these companies' and 'they were looking for much financially stronger companies', such as Elders or BHP. Mr Alparslan said that he told Mr Combe that he apparently had not been given the full information about the matters and had only one side of the story. Mr Combe replied: No, I have the entire story. I have been appointed as a representative of the Soviet Central Committee and I am liaising with the political officer of the USSR Embassy here in Australia. In cross-examination, Mr Alparslan agreed that he did not distinctly remember the word 'appointed', but asserted that he distinctly remembered the word ' representative' or 'representation'. Mr Alparslan impressed me as a witness of truth and as reliable, and I have no doubt that he was correct in his evidence. However, I do not conclude from Mr Combe's statement to Mr Alparslan that he had , in fact, already been appointed as a representative of any Soviet organisation . The statement is relevant to a determination of how Mr Combe viewed, at about 16 March, Mr Ivanov's Moscow proposal, but I think that Mr Alparslan was right in his view that Mr Combe was simply trying to impress him. I consider that Mr Combe's denial of Mr Alparslan's evidence was deliberately false. Paragraph 4.20 reads- 4.20 I needed no evidence of friends or acquaintenances to accept that Mr Combe is an expansive person, who talks well, wittily and, frequently, at length, particularly about political matters. It is understandable that it was said of him that he 'was not noted for his social reticence'. There were several views of his ability to keep confidences. While some witnesses said that he could keep them, Mr Cameron said that although he revealed confidences to other people, 'he may well have been doing that as part of his job'. However, it was his experience that he would 'tell people certain things that perhaps he should not' . Mr P. N. Gill, the owner of Peaches Restaurant, said that Mr Combe had told him things 'that should have been privy to his business', and that he did not hesitate to disclose to Mr Gill details of his business dealings. More importantly, the evidence established what I regard as a gross breach of confidence. Mr Combe's report to CBA contained descriptions of, and comments on, conversations which he had in Moscow with Soviet officials. Some of the comments being critical, and recommendations were made for action by CBA, for the most part of a political or propagandist nature. In his letter, headed 'Private and Confidential', forwarding the report to Mr Matheson, he wrote that the report ' was prepared exclusively for you and which I would hope would not be copied or made available to anybody else because of the sensitivity of many of the observations made in it and the possible consequences of that material passing back to Moscow'. The report itself is headed 'Private and Confidential'. In his conversation with Mr Ivanov of 4 March 1983, Mr Combe told Mr Ivanov not only of the general effect of his recommendations but also of his client's adverse reaction to them. The disclosure to Mr Ivanov of the recommendations was a breach of confidence, but Mr Combe may have felt that it was in his client's interests to make the disclosure. Nevertheless, it was quite unnecessary, and a gross breach of confidence, which could have had an adverse effect upon his client, to tell Mr Ivanov of Mr Matheson's reaction to the recommendations. On the evidence before me, I conclude that Mr Combe may betray a confidence, either unthinkingly in the course of expansive talking, or quite deliberately if he thinks it to be in his own or his client's interests. Paragraph 4.92 reads- 4.92 The first statement is contrary to the evidence of what was said and done by Mr Combe, including what he said about his relationship with Mr Ivanov after the announcement of the expulsion on 22 April. Mr Combe said that he was getting 'pretty cranky' about what he saw to be the failure of Soviet officials to do the right thing by his client. He also said that he was feeling under a bit of pressure from Mr Ivanov to meet him and that, having regard to the limited time he had with his family, he found Mr Ivanov's visits, and his insistence on making them, intrusive. Then he claimed that he was getting a bit sick of Mr Ivanov. The evidence is that Mr Ivanov rang Mr Combe at 5.48 p.m. on the evening of 15 March, and asked him what he was doing. Mr Combe replied that he was going to watch 'The Dismissal' at 8.30 p.m., but that if Mr Ivanov wanted to come at 7 .30 for a talk, he was quite welcome. This does not suggest that Mr Combe was objecting to what he regarded as an intrusion by Mr Ivanov. Their next meeting was on 21 March. Mr Ivanov rang Mr Combe at 6.48 p.m., and Mr Combe said that he and his family were about to have dinner, and he would call Mr Ivanov at work the next day. On the following day, Mr Combe rang Mr Ivanov at about midday and arranged to have lunch with him at the Lakeside Hotel. This conduct of Mr Combe, does not suggest any resentment by him of continuing contact with Mr Ivanov. It was Mr Combe who, on 1 April, rang Mr Ivanov, and when he was unable to speak to him, went to his house, unannounced, on 3 April. Apart from his own statement about his feelings, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the relationship between Mr Combe and Mr Ivanov, whom Mr Combe had called his 'good friend' on 4 March, had deteriorated. The evidence discloses that, after Mr Ivanov's expulsion was announced, Mr Combe asserted more than once his continuing friendship with Mr Ivanov. Thus, on both 22 April and 2 May, in discussing Mr Ivanov's expulsion, he told Mr R. M. Cameron that he knew Mr Ivanov quite well, and spoke of the closeness of their friendship. On 25 April, he told Mr Wright that he had found Mr Ivanov 'quite a reasonable bloke to have dealt with'. On 26 April, he told Mr Drysdale that he had known Mr Ivanov ' extremely well', and on the same day informed Mr Hartung that Mr Ivanov was a ' mate' of his, and indicated to Mr David Barnett that he was 'a nice man'. It appears that he even considered inviting Mr Ivanov to a party on 26 April, but changed his mind because 'we don't want to appear implicated', 'we don't want to have any more lies go forward than is absolutely essential', and 'we are reluctant to contact him'. On 15 May, Mr Combe told Mr M. Walsh, on a television programme, that Mr Ivanov was a thoroughly charming man. It may be that Mr Combe was disappointed that Mr Ivanov had not been able to achieve what Mr Combe wanted in relation to CBA, but, as will appear, I have no doubt that Mr Combe was still very interested in the Moscow proposal. I have concluded that the statements made by Mr Combe about the deterioration of his relationship with Mr Ivanov were untrue, and deliberately so. Those statements, unlike other parts of his evidence, cannot be explained by lapses or imperfections of memory. Paragraph 4.81 reads- 4.81 On 6 April, Mr Combe told Mr Matheson of the warning. According to Mr Matheson, Mr Combe told him about it on two occasions. He said that on the first occasion, Mr Combe in Mr Woods' presence, told him 'that Mr Ivanov had told him that his, Mr Combe's, house was bugged, his phone was tapped and that he was under surveillance and had been since he arrived back from the USSR'. Mr Matheson responded lightly, saying 'Join the club. Anyone that has anything to do with the Soviet Union must expect that sort of thing. I have no doubt mine has been bugged for some time.' Later, outside the house, and in the absence of Mr Woods, Mr Combe referred to the matter again. According to Mr Matheson: He repeated what had been said inside but also added that Mr Ivanov had told him that he, Mr Ivanov, was also under surveillance, that there was an operation on to compromise Mr Ivanov and have him expelled, and that Combe was a part of this and that it would follow operations which had been carried out in other countries and I think he mentioned Britain, France and Italy. He also said that he, Mr Ivanov, had told him not to get in touch with him, to maintain a low profile and that Mr Ivanov would contact him by other means. Mr Matheson said that this was said in a serious tone. Mr Matheson was closely cross-examined about his account of the conversation of 6 April. It was also suggested that his recollection of what was said on that date was impaired by liquor which he consumed at Peaches Restaurant (see 4.88). There is no doubt and , indeed, it is Mr Combe's evidence, that what Mr Combe told Mr Matheson included what Mr Ivanov had said about any future meetings. Although there were inconsistencies in his evidence of the sequence of events on 6 April, Mr Matheson was not shaken on his recollection of what Mr Combe has said. Nor do I find that he was so affected by liquor as to make his recollection unreliable. Paragraph 4.85 reads- 4.85 I am satisfied that Mr Ivanov's proposal as to how he and Mr Combe should meet after 3 April was substantially as recounted by Mr Matheson. Moreover, I have no doubt that the evidence given by Mr Barnett and Senator Evans of what was said by them to Mr Combe on 11 May, and of Mr Combe's response to it, was correct. I reject Mr Combe's contradiction of that evidence. Paragraph 4.106 reads- 4.106 This evidence is an admission that Mr Combe was prepared to accede to a suggestion by a Soviet diplomat, who, he thought, might be a KGB officer, that their future contacts should be so arranged as to limit the opportunity for surveillance. On the facts as I have found them, Mr Combe was leaving it to a person who, he believed, was probably a KGB officer, and for this reason was likely to be expelled, to arrange their future meetings in such a way as to avoid surveillance. It may be, as was submitted to the Commission, that it matters little whether or not Mr Combe's version of the warning is accepted. On his own statement, Mr Combe proposed to accede to Mr Ivanov's suggestion as to future contact. Paragraph 4.107 reads- 4.107 Mr Combe told Mr Matheson about Mr Ivanov's warning a few days later on 6 April. It was submitted that this was inconsistent with Mr Combe detecting anything improper in the warning. This submission has some weight. However, Mr Combe had to explain to Mr Matheson why he would be unable to initiate, or would have only limited, contact with Mr Ivanov. Although he told Mr Matheson about Mr Ivanov's warning, he did not tell Mr Cameron or Mr Farmer about it. Nor did he recount the warning to the many people to whom he spoke on the telephone on or after 22 April, although he did recite Mr Ivanov's claim that he, Combe, was under surveillance and his prediction about expulsion. He did not refer in the written statement which he gave to the Government on 11 May to the warning. This does not establish a feeling of guilt on his part, but it does justify the inference that he thought that the revelation of Mr Ivanov's warning would not assist his cause. Again, Mr Combe's claims that he no longer regarded Mr Ivanov as a friend, but regarded hin as a 'creep', and that he had lost interest in the Moscow proposal, both of which claims I regard as false, justify an inference that he was trying to distance himself from Mr Ivanov in giving evidence to the Commission because of a fear that the closeness of the relationship would damage his case. Finally, his outrage after he came to believe that his telephone had been intercepted is hard to reconcile with his failure to complain about the warning which Mr Ivanov gave him. His explanations for this failure were quite unsatisfactory. He said, for example, that after a few days he ceased to take seriously what Mr Ivanov had said, and that his feeling of deference to Ministers inhibited him in approaching them. The first claim does not stand with the evidence of his own reaction, and of the reactions in his household, after Mr Ivanov's warning. Mr Combe said that at the time Mr Ivanov spoke in a way which showed no urgency or emotion, but, on 26 April, he told Mr Hartung that Mr Ivanov had been 'quite emphatic'. At the same time as he said that it did not occur to him to report the conversation, Mr Combe said that it seemed to him inconceivable that a Labor Government would initiate or continue interception of a senior party colleague, and that if ASIO had instigated an interception it might well have been unauthorised by the Government. He further said that he thought ASIO was as likely to decive the Government, as to maintain an unauthorised interception. This reasoning, it might be thought, would have led Mr Combe to have reported the matter rather than not to complain. The second claim based on deference to Ministers, is inconsistent with his ready contact with Ministers or members of their staffs when it suited him. In my opinion, the failure to report Mr Ivanov's warning points to an appreciation by him that he might be seen to have been compromised by Mr Ivanov. I have no doubt that if, in April 1983, Mr Ivanov had asked Mr Combe to spy for the Soviet Union, Mr Combe would have roundly rejected the request. However, considerations to which I have referred in this paragraph preserve a doubt whether Mr Combe could have withstood a long and subtle process of cultivation, and whether he appreciated the dangers inherent in his relationship with Mr Ivanov. Propriety of the Government's Actions The Royal Commissioner has considered and set out his conclusions on the propriety of the Government's actions. Eight major matters are dealt with in this respect. First, His Honour concluded that the Ministers constituting the National and International Security Committee were thorough and demanding in their consideration of the material which the Director-General had provided to them (3.9); they vigorously cross-examined the ASIO officers who were brought in , at the Committee's request, to provide more information (3.11). Paragraph 3.9 reads- 3.9 It was apparent that, up to this point, the NISC Ministers had been thorough and demanding in their examination of the material which ASIO, through its Director-General, had provided to them. Although Mr Barnett, at the invitation of the Prime Minister, had expressed his views on the courses of action available in respect of Mr Ivanov, the Ministers were unwilling to accept those views without questioning and analysis of all the available material. Further, when it became apparent that Ministers required more information than Mr Barnett was then able to provide, they had no hesitation in adjourning the meeting and postponing the making of decisions until the information could be made available . Paragraph 3.11 reads- 3.11 The meeting was marked by rigorous cross-examination of the ASIO officers by the Ministers about the evidence which had been collected by ASIO. Much of the questioning concerned the matters of national security referred to in Appendix III. Other subjects dealt with included the extent to which trade matters, as distinct from political matters, were discussed by Mr Ivanov and Mr Combe, whether Mr Ivanov's instructions to deal with Mr Combe would have originated in the Foreign Ministry, KGB or Central Committee of the CPSU, and which of those bodies was likely to be the final destination of information which Mr Combe may provide to Mr Ivanov, the clandestinity proposal and its significance, the conversation of 4 March including by reference to the transcript, an examination of the major themes which emerged from it, the proposition that Mr Combe should enter into a financial relationship with the Soviet Government, Mr Combe's belief that Mr Ivanov was probably a KGB officer and the danger to national security which was seen to arise from the relationship. Second, His Honour finds that there was ample justification for the decision to expel Ivanov (3.23), and that the expulsion was properly carried out. Once the decision was taken, it was open to the Cabinet Committee to allow Ivanov seven days in which to leave the country, and it was reasonable and proper to announce at a Press conference the Government's decision and the reasons for it as far as they could be made known at that time (3.25). Paragraph 3.23 reads- 3.23 I turn now to consider each of the decisions made by NISC as recorded in Decision No. 321 (NIS). By late afternoon on 21 April, no member of NISC could have been in doubt that ASIO's identification of Mr Ivanov as a KGB intelligence officer was correct. The observations which ASIO had made of Mr Ivanov's behaviour and activities since his arrival in Australia coupled with the confirmation of his status to which I have already referred admit of only one conclusion. However, there does not seem to be a generally accepted view as to the action which a government should take when its security service advises it of the presence in the country of an intelligence officer from a hostile foreign power. In 1978, the Department of Foreign Affairs expressed the view that 'any Soviet official who can be proven to have engaged in illegal subversion or intelligence collection on Australian territory should be subject to an immediate request to the Soviet Embassy for his withdrawal.' This prompted the then Director-General of Security to urge that 'at times there may be a need to extend the principle to cover Soviet officials who are identified as intelligence officers and who can be shown to be operating outside their ostensible duties, even though further proof cannot be obtained of their involvement in illegal activity.' I find the 1978 view of the Department of Foreign Affairs somewhat restrictive. Had that view prevailed in the present matter, Mr Ivanov might not have been expelled. In fact, the Department of Foreign Affairs officers concluded that expulsion of Mr Ivanov was an appropriate course. Ample justification for the approach advocated by the Director-General of Security in 1978 (which, incidentally, is supported not only by the present Government but also by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock- see 3.18) is proved by the conduct and activities of Mr Ivanov. Although he was not proved to have engaged in illegal subversion (as defined in s. 5 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979) or intelligence collection in Australia, he had been identified as an intelligence officer and was shown to be operating outside his obstensible duties. On this approach, the identification of Mr Ivanov as a KGB officer without more, warranted his expulsion. Paragraph 3.25 reads- 3.25 It is impossible, given the presentation by ASIO to NISC and the Ministers' own perceptions of Mr Combe's access to the Ministry, to conclude that the decision to expel Mr Ivanov was not reasonably open to NISC. Once it had made that decision, it was open to the Committee, acting upon the advice of senior officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, to allow Mr Ivanov seven days in which to leave the country. Likewise, it was reasonable and proper to announce, at a press conference, the Government's decision and the reasons for it as far as they could be made known in the circumstances. Third, Mr Justice Hope concludes that the placing of Mr Combe under surveillance , which was done on the advice of the Director-General of Security, was a prudent and appropriate course to take (3.29). That surveillance was duly authorised, carried out by appropriate means, and was properly terminated on 4 May (5.43). Paragraph 3.29 reads- 3.29 The final decision of NISC is that which directed the Director-General of Security to arrange for the immediate surveillance of Mr Combe by all appropriate means. It is important to bear in mind that, when this decision was made, Mr Ivanov was still in Australia and likely to remain here for up to seven days after the formal announcement of his expulsion. Further, ASIO had candidly admitted to NISC that it did not know the full extent of the relationship between Mr Ivanov and Mr Combe. Accordingly, it did not know whether in the period before Mr Ivanov left the country he would contact or attempt to contact Mr Combe. Nor could it be predicted with certainty that in the days immediately after the announcement no attempt would be made by other Soviet officials to contact Mr Combe or by Mr Combe to contact them. From an intelligence point of view, there might have been benefits to be gained from monitoring Soviet activity in relation to Mr Combe bearing in mind the interest which the KGB presumably had in recruiting him. From a national security point of view, surveillance of Mr Combe might have indicated more fully the extent to which he was involved with Mr Ivanov, thereby enabling decisions which had already been made concerning Mr Combe to be reassessed and, if appropriate, varied. In deciding to place Mr Combe under surveillance, NISC acted upon the advice of the Director-General of Security. In my view, that was, in the circumstances, a prudent and appropriate course to take. Paragraph 5.43 reads- 5.43 I have already indicated, at least by implication, in 5.2 to 5.4, my conclusion that the surveillance of Mr Combe was duly authorised and was carried out by all appropriate means. It was not argued by any Counsel who appeared before me that the surveillance should have been terminated any earlier than it was on 4 May. Counsel for Mr Combe, of course, did not concede that it was reasonable to impose surveillance on their client in the first place. Bearing in mind that Mr Ivanov did not leave Australia until 28 April and, that surveillance of Mr Combe was actually undertaken for a total of only about 12 days, I do not believe that such surveillance could reasonably have ended earlier than 4 May. I have, moreover, considered whether the decision to end it on 4 May might have owed more to the Prime Minsiter's understandable irritation by the erroneous ASIO report on Mr Hogg than to a dispassionate evaluation of the factors properly bearing on such a decision. However, in the light of the evidence of the circumstances as they appeared and the professed concern of the Government and the Prime Minister that Mr Combe's civil liberties should be infringed no more than absolutely necessary, I have concluded that the decision to terminate surveillance on 4 May was properly made. Fourth, the report states that it was undoubtedly open for the Cabinet Committee to regard further professional dealings between Ministers and Mr Combe as undesirable. This was on the basis that it was reasonable for the Cabinet Committee to conclude that the relationship between Ivanov and Mr Combe had serious implications for national security (3.26). The decision that I should inform other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services by Mr Combe is thereby supported. Mr Justice Hope finds that any use by Ministers of Mr Combe's consultancy services, at least until the full extent of his involvement with Mr Ivanov could be determined as a result of further surveillance, would have been unwise and, during the period of surveillance, imprudent (3.26). Paragraph 3.26 reads- 3.26 NISC decided that the Prime Minister should inform other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Mr Combe but without comment on his relationship with Mr Ivanov. If it was reasonable for NISC to conclude that the relationship was such as to have serious implications for national security, then it was undoubtedly open to regard further professional dealings between Ministers and Mr Combe as undesirable. In presenting its material to NISC, ASIO indicated that it did not know whether Mr Combe had accepted Mr Ivanov's proposal that the relationship should become clandestine, or how deeply involved Mr Combe was with Mr Ivanov. Given that uncertainty, any use by Ministers of Mr Combe's consultancy services, at least until the full extent of his involvement with Mr Ivanov could be determined, would have been unwise. Furthermore, in the light of NISC's decision to direct ASIO to impose surveillance upon Mr Combe (see 3.29), it would have been imprudent for Ministers to have continued to deal with Mr Combe during the period of the surveillance. This was apparently accepted by some of the Ministers who participated in making the decision. Although some Ministers made reference to Mr Combe's activities as a lobbyist against the background of his former official position in the ALP, the decision in paragraph (c) was made essentially upon national security grounds. The Royal Commissioner accepts that it was the desire not to damage unnecessarily either Mr Combe's reputation or his business which motivated the decision that I should not comment upon the relationship with Ivanov when informing other Ministers that they should not deal with Mr Combe in his professional capacity (3.27). Paragraph 3.27 reads- 3.27 The Prime Minister was enjoined to inform other Ministers of the NISC decision concerning the use of Mr Combe's services 'without comment on the relationship between him and Mr Ivanov'. The Government was alert to the possible repercussions on Mr Combe of publicity or gossip about his relationship with Mr Ivanov. I am prepared to accept that it was the desire not to damage unnecessarily either Mr Combe's reputation or his business which motivated the Committee to ask the Prime Minister not to comment upon the relationship when implementing that part of the decision. I can find no fault with that request. I have considered the submission that this desire to protect Mr Combe might have been defeated by speculation in any event, but I do not think that, in the circumstances, that possibility should have led NISC to take some other course. He finds that it was proper for me, without mentioning the national security aspect of the matter, to inform other Ministers at a Cabinet meeting on 26 April and at a Ministry meeting on 2 May, that they should not deal with Mr Combe in his professional capacity (page 215). The relevant part of page 215 reads- Issue 15 Did the Prime Minister inform, and if so was it proper for him to inform, other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Combe: (a) by raising the matter at a Cabinet meeting on 26th April? (b) by raising the matter at a Ministry meeting on 2nd May? (c) without informing Ministers of the relationship between Combe and Ivanov? Answer (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. The fifth matter related to the conduct of certain briefings by the Government. Mr Justice Hope states that the Cabinet Committee's decision to brief the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), on the Government's conclusion about Mr Ivanov's activities was entirely proper and appropriate (3.19). Paragraph 3.19 reads- 3.19 Section 21 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 contemplates that the Leader of the Opposition should receive regular briefings from the Director-General of Security 'for the purpose of keeping him informed on matters relating to security'. If any statutory justification for informing Mr Peacock of the details of the Ivanov-Combe matter were needed, it is to be found in that section. However, it is my view, that irrespective of any statutory provisions about consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, it was entirely proper and appropriate for Mr Peacock to have been informed of the Government's concern about Mr Ivanov's activities. Matters of national security ought to transcend party political considerations and should seldom be allowed to become subjects for partisan controversy. He further finds that the Committee's request to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to brief the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on the matter was also appropriate (3.28), and that both briefings were properly carried out (page 214 and 5.20). Paragraph 3.28 reads- 3.28 I have dealt in 3.18 and 3.19 with the NISC decision to request the Prime Minister to brief the Leader of the Opposition. It will be noted that NISC decided to request the Attorney-General to advise the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory of the relationship between Mr Combe and Mr Ivanov and the activities of Mr Combe. The briefing took place in Adelaide on 26 April and is dealt with in 5.16 to 5.20. NISC's decision to inform Mr Everingham of the matter was prompted by the knowledge that Mr Combe had been retained as a consultant by the Government of the Northern Territory. Given the dangers to national security which NISC believed to flow from Mr Combe's relationship with Mr Ivanov, and its resultant decision to request the Prime Minister to inform other Ministers that they should not make use of Mr Combe's consultancy services , NISC was almost obliged to alert Mr Everingham to Mr Combe's involvement with Mr Ivanov. That followed from the fact that the Chief Minister was in all relevant respects equivalent to a State Premier, and was known to be using Mr Combe's professional services. If NISC felt that it was unwise for Federal Ministers to continue to deal professionally with Mr Combe because of the possible implications for national security, it was proper to advise Mr Everingham of the problem which had arisen so that he could make an informed decision on whether Mr Combe's retainer should continue, and, if so, on what terms. In addition, the Government was concerned that if Mr Combe continued to act, as before, on behalf of the Northern Territory Government he might be brought into direct contact with Federal Ministers, thereby negating the effect of paragraph (c) of Decision 321 (NIS) which I have dealt with in 3.26. On this basis, as well, in my opinion it was appropriate for NISC to request the Attorney to brief Mr Everingham on the matter. The relevant part of page 214 reads- Issue 11 If Yes to 7 (c), was the briefing of the Leader of the Opposition properly carried out? AnswerYes. Issue 12 If Yes to 7 (d), was the briefing of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory properly carried out? AnswerYes. Paragraph 5.20 reads- 5.20 The evidence of Mr Everingham diverged to some extent from that of Senator Evans and Mr Barnett about who had initiated that suggestion as to the course to be followed by the Northern Territory Government. It is understandable, where there has been discussion of a number of options or alternative courses of action before unanimity is reached as to what should be done, that participants in the discussion may have less than perfect recall as to which of them sponsored one or other alternative. The divergence in the evidence to which I have referred is inconsequential and unnecessary for me to resolve in determining whether the briefing of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was properly carried out. I have already considered in 3.28 whether it was reasonably open to NISC to decide that Mr Everingham should be advised of the relationship between Mr Combe and Mr Ivanov, and of the activities of Mr Combe. Having regard to the views which I there expressed, I consider that it was appropriate to provide Mr Everingham with as much of the information in the possession of ASIO, and as much indication of the actions which the Federal Government had decided to take in respect of Mr Combe, as would enable the Northern Territory Government to make an informed reappraisal of its own relationship with Mr Combe and the use, if any, which it could properly make of his services in the future. Mr Everingham was pemitted to bring to the briefing the Solicitor-General to his own Government, and there was no suggestion that anything relevant was concealed from him either by Senator Evans or Mr Barnett. There could be no suggestion that Mr Everingham was denied an opportunity for full enquiry or explanation of the matters raised at the meeting, since the evidence is that it was terminated at his instigation when he indicated that he had another engagement to keep. Accordingly, I find that the briefing of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was fully and properly carried out. On the sixth matter, the report canvasses in detail the question whether Mr Combe should have been given the opportunity to be heard. The Royal Commissioner conclues that the NIS Committee was not required by law to give a hearing to Mr Combe, either before it made its decisions or at any time thereafter (6.13). He goes on, however, to consider broader requirements of fairness. He canvasses the arguments for and against giving Mr Combe a hearing, and expresses the view that there were a number of considerations justifying a conclusion that Mr Combe should not have been heard (6.33). Paragraph 6.13 reads- 6.13 Applying these principles to the decision of NISC concerning the use of Mr Combe's services, I have concluded that the Committee was not required by law to give a hearing to Mr Combe, either before it made its decision, or at any time thereafter. The power that the Committee was exercising was neither a statutory power nor a prerogative power. It was a decision which could be made by any group of citizens whether they would allow a person who was a consultant and lobbyist to deal with them in that capacity. The fact that the decision was made for reasons of national security does not change its essential nature. Indeed, presuming that the principles of natural justice were otherwise applicable, the presence of considerations of national security might have rendered them inapplicable to this decision. Likewise, again presuming that the principles were applicable, the decision that Mr Combe should be placed under surveillance by ASIO, of itself, apart from any other consideration, might have absolved NISC from any legal obligation to hear Mr Combe before that surveillance was terminated and its results known. However, quite apart from these national security considerations, the decision of NISC was of a kind that does not attract the application of the principles of natural justice. Paragraph 6.33 reads- 6.33 There were however, many countervailing considerations justifying a conclusion that Mr Combe should not have been heard before that decision was taken. The Director-General of Security had put before the Committee material which justified the conclusions that Mr Combe's relationship with Mr Ivanov might be about to become clandestine, and that there was a serious risk to national security. It was unknown where Mr Combe stood in the matter. Mr Ivanov' s actions had not been taken on his own initiative. The important acts were done on directions from Moscow. The Director-General did not make any recommendations about Mr Combe's access to Ministers, but when asked by the Prime Minister what action should be taken in respect of Mr Combe, he recommended surveillance to see whether there would be any further approaches from members of the Soviet Embassy to Mr Combe, or from Mr Combe to members of the Soviet Embassy. This recommendation by the Director-General and its acceptance by NISC were, in my opinion, entirely justified. Obviously such a recommendation could not have been made or accepted after Mr Combe had been given a hearing. If it was not possible to give Mr Combe a hearing on the question of surveillance, it was not possible to give him a hearing on any decision as to his access to Ministers. In the circumstances, NISC could have made no decision at all, could have made an interim decision to be reviewed later in the light of subsequent events, or could have made the decision which it did, leaving open the possibility of the matter being reviewed if and when circumstances made it possible to give Mr Combe a hearing. Mr Justice Hope says that, with hindsight, an appropriate course for the Cabinet Committee may have been to make an interim decision on access to Ministers, reserving further consideration of the possibility of Mr Combe being given a hearing, until more was known-following a period of surveillance-of Mr Combe's status as a security risk (6.34). Paragraph 6.34 reads- 6.34 Quite apart from any political consideration, in my opinion, it would be entirely inappropriate, on national security grounds, for Ministers to have allowed continued access to themselves in their position as Ministers by a person whom the Cabinet national security committee, and the Attorney-General, had decided should be placed under surveillance by ASIO. Furthermore, when NISC made its decision, Mr Ivanov was still in the country, and he did not leave until 28 April. It could not be known what Mr Combe's reaction to ASIO's allegations would be, and it was a real possibility that he might reveal to the public anything disclosed to him in the course of a hearing. NISC could have made an interim decision, expressly reserving reconsideration of it until Mr Ivanov had left the country and the results of the surveillance were known. If consideration were then to be given to whether the decision should continue in force, Mr Combe could have been given an opportunity to be heard. With hindsight , it seems to me that this may have been an appropriate course for NISC to have taken. The decision which it did take was not expressed to be limited in the time for which it was to operate, but it was associated with a decision as to surveillance, which, in due course, would lead to a report of the result of that surveillance. Putting to one side the decisions of Cabinet and the Ministry on 26 April and 2 May respectively, it was open to NISC to reconsider the matter which was its province to decide, that is whether, the surveillance having come to an end, there remained any national security reasons for continuing in force the NISC decision affecting Mr Combe. NISC could have decided that there were no such national security considerations without hearing Mr Combe or, if some doubts remained, have given Mr Combe a hearing, and then have decided what course should be taken. He finds, however, that appropriate steps were in fact in train after the termination of surveillance on 4 May to give Mr Combe a hearing (6.39). The reference here is to action that was taken, following discussion between me and a member of my staff, Mr Hogg, to suggest that Mr Combe prepare a written statment (6.37). While these steps were overtaken by events-the public speculation and allegations that led in the end to the Royal Commission-the report said there is nothing in the evidence to show that Mr Combe would not, in the event, have been heard in a way that satisfied the requirements of ordinary fairness (6.39). Paragraph 6.39 reads- 6.39 It has been submitted for Mr Combe that the Government could have taken swifter action after 4 May to give him a hearing. It was further submitted that the failure to provide him with any particulars of the case against him meant that what took place was, in no sense, any part of a hearing. Although it is no final answer, Mr Combe's written statement shows that he knew the essence of the case. It would have been unfair if the course which had been initiated had come to an end without Mr Combe being given more particulars about the case. However, if, as I have found, what occurred was the first step in a hearing, it follows that appropriate steps were in train after the termination of surveillance to give Mr Combe a hearing. There is nothing in the evidence to show that if, after Mr Combe had provided his statement to the Government, other events had not intervened, the hearing would not have continued in a way that satisfied the requirements of ordinary fairness. Paragraph 6.37 reads- 6.37 After the NISC decision had been taken and conveyed to the Cabinet and the Ministry, there were discussions between the Prime Minister and Mr Hogg. Mr Hogg then asked Mr Cameron to suggest to Mr Combe that he provide the Government with a written statement, setting out in full a description of his relationship with Soviet officials and, in particular, with Mr Ivanov. No particulars of any allegations against Mr Combe were given to him, but, in his statement, he dealt with most of the essence of the case that ASIO had put. Obviously, if nothing more had happened, it would have been appropriate as a matter of fairness for someone on behalf of NISC, probably the Attorney-General, to call in Mr Combe, ask him questions about what he had written, and put to him some particular matters which formed part of ASIO's case. It would not have been possible to put to Mr Combe all the matters raised by ASIO before NISC, but it would have been possible to put the main thrust of the case, and to have received and considered Mr Combe's side of the story. I should mention that this question of a hearing, and the inadequacies of existing legislation in regard to a procedure for dealing with a case of this kind, weighed heavily with me and the Government at the time. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Opposition to purport, as it has on this issue, to be concerned about civil liberties generally, and those of Mr Combe in particular. Mr Justice Hope's report indicates that, despite the difficult circumstances in which the Government found itself, it did what it could to provide a hearing to Mr Combe in order to overcome the limitations of the existing legislation. When in opposition the Australian Labor Party attempted to address the very problems that have been now highlighted by this affair. For example, in a debate in the Senate on 9 May 1979 the now Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) argued for an extension of 'the principle of allowing an appeal where persons are prejudiced by adverse assessments or communications in the nature of assessments'. But the ALP's attempt to broaden the provisions for notification of the existence of an adverse security assessment was defeated in both Houses by votes along party lines. The Government, therefore, welcomes the fact that Mr Justice Hope, in response to an issue that we expressly included in his terms of reference, will be making recommendations in his general report on the need for the establishment of a statutory procedure enabling an independent body to decide, in appropriate cases , whether, and if so how, an individual should be provided with an opportunity to be heard when a report of ASIO may result in action adverse to his interests (page 218, paragraph 2). The paragraph reads- 2. The evidence reveals a need for legislative or other action in respect of several matters. However, it is not appropriate that I make recommendations for such action in my report on Term of Reference (c). I shall make recommendations on these matters in my report on Terms of Reference (a) and (b). They include: (a) The need for ASIO to review its practices and procedures in order to reduce the possibility of error and to reveal, when reporting in the exercise of its functions, the existence of any such possibility. (b) The need for ASIO to review its practices and procedures when reporting matters to Ministers, and particularly when a report will or may result in action by Ministers. (c) The need for the establishment of a statutory procedure enabling an independent body to decide, in appropriate cases, whether, and, if so, how an Australian citizen or resident should be provided with an opportunity to be heard when a report by ASIO may result in action adverse to the interests of that citizen or resident. The seventh matter concerns the events surrounding the statement I made in this Parliament on 11 May. His Honour finds that the discussions between the Attorney -General and Mr Combe on 11 May were understood by both sides to be intended to arrive at an agreed basis for taking the affair once and for all out of the area of public speculation and political controversy (5.65). He concludes that the Government's action in acquainting Mr Combe, as it did on that day, with the information provided to the NIS Committee by ASIO was appropriate (5.65), and that Mr Combe was given an effective opportunity to present his version (5.67). Paragraph 5.65 reads- 5.65 I will indicate in 6.38 my conclusion that any desire on the part of the Government to afford to Mr Combe some sort of opportunity to be heard was overtaken by the events of 9 and 10 May, and that the discussions between the Attorney-General and Mr Combe on 11 May were understood by both sides to be intended to arrive at an agreed basis for taking the affair once and for all out of the area of public speculation and political controversy. Seen against that background, I conclude that the action of the Government in acquainting Mr Combe , as it did, with the information provided to NISC by ASIO was appropriate. The atmosphere of the interviews between Mr Combe and the Attorney-General and between Mr Combe and Mr Barnett, and of the afternoon meeting between the Attorney-General, Mr Combe and Mr Higgins were as free from tension and pressure as they reasonably could have been having regard to the circumstances and the time constraints under which the parties were required to act. Indeed, Mr Combe accepted that any statement which might be made on 11 May had to be finalised on that day, and, as he said, he 'saw the Attorney as acting in good faith and I hoped that it would be possible, which would end the agony for me and at the same time minimise the damage to the Government.' Nor did he have any complaint of Mr Barnett's presentation to him, conceding that they parted on amicable terms and accepting that Mr Barnett had been 'seeking to inform me to the best of his brief of what it was that I was supposed to have done.' Paragraph 5.67 reads- 5.67 It follows from what I have set out in 5.65 and 5.66 that Mr Combe was properly acquainted with the information which had been presented to NISC. I also consider that he was given a proper opportunity, in the circumstances, to present his version, both by means of the written statement and orally, of his association with Soviet officials. That is not to say that some further opportunity to supplement that material should not have been given to him had the meetings and interviews of 11 May been intended to afford him an opportunity to be heard. However, as I have already concluded, the combination of external pressures meant that the process which occurred on 11 May was not seen by either side as forming part of any sort of a hearing. The opportunity given to Mr Combe to present his version has to be assessed against the change in the use to which that version was intended to be put. That use was to enable him to put everything which might lead to the agreed statement reflecting his own position in a light which was as favourable to him as he could reasonably expect. I consider that the opportunity given to him was adequate to achieve that purpose. Mr Justice Hope found that the preparation by the Attorney-General and Mr Combe of the agreed statement on 11 May proceeded on the basis that once such a statement had been made by me there would be no further public comment by way of justification, gloss or supplement, by either the Government or Mr Combe (5.60). Paragraph 5.60 reads- 5.60 The process of settling the form of the agreed statement proceeded on the basis that once such a statement had been made by the Prime Minister there would be no further public comment by way of qualification, gloss or supplement, by either the Government or Mr Combe, on the matters covered by the statement, except that Mr Combe could make a public announcement, in a form to be approved first by the Attorney-General, of his intention to sue for libel in respect of the 'Daily Mirror' article. He concludes further that Mr Combe's participation in the agreement was made after a full assessment of its advantages and disadvantages for himself, without the application of any undue pressure or the offer of any improper inducement by the Government (5.62). Paragraph 5.62 reads- 5.62 There were very few discrepancies between the evidence of Senator Evans, Mr Combe and Mr Higgins on the substance of the agreement pursuant to which the Prime Minister's statement was made. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in concluding that the substance of the agreement was as set out in 5.60. I also conclude that Mr Combe's participation in the agreement was made after a full assessment of its advantages and disadvantages for himself, without the application of any undue pressure or the offer of any improper inducement by the Government. Of course, Senator Evans was aware from the discussions of the previous evening that the alternative for the Government, if an agreement was not reached, was to table in Parliament all the documentary material which it possessed including the transcripts of 4 March and 3 April. It is clear that he fully and forcibly urged on Mr Combe the detrimental consequences which such a course could have for him, but, I am unable to conclude that anything which Senator Evans did was calculated to, or did, overbear Mr Combe's will when he came to conclude the agreement. He says he is not able to conclude that Mr Combe did not fully and freely enter into the agreement, which was reached with his own lawyer's advice and assistance (5.64). Paragraph 5.64 reads- 5.64 It is true that Mr Combe claimed that he was 'totally devoid of fight' on the afternoon of 11 May, and that he was in a state of acute trauma, profoundly affected by a sense of separation from his family. Distressing as the circumstances undoubtedly were for him, I am not able to conclude that he did not fully and freely enter into the agreement which was reached with Mr Higgins' advice and assistance. It was, I consider, his perceptions of the benefits of the agreement in ensuring that 'honour was preserved for both sides' and in other ways for himself, which led him to telephone his wife 'with some sense of profound relief and absurd belief that the matter could be resolved.' It was only after the Prime Minister made the agreed statement that Mr Combe came to question the view that the agreement, on balance, was in his own best interests. Mr Justice Hope says it is clear that Mr Combe, during the evening of 11 May, did comment on the matters covered by the statement that I had by then made to the Parliament, in circumstances which made it highly likely that his comments could be widely published (5.68). Paragraph 5.68 reads- 5.68 It is clear that Mr Combe, during the evening of 11 May, did comment on the matters covered by the Prime Minister's statement in circumstances which made it highly likely that his comments would be widely published. Mr Combe acknowledged that, after reaching the agreement with the Attorney-General, he had conversations with his wife and some journalists, and as a result of statements made to him during those conversations he became dissatisfied with the agreement . He claimed that between 7.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. on that night 'I became aware of the fact that I believed the agreement had been breached'. He also agreed under cross-examination by Counsel for the Government, that on the night of 11 May he had a conversation with a group of journalists at 'Charlies Restaurant' which included Miss Michelle Grattan and Mr Ken Haley of the Melbourne 'Age' and Mr Richard Carleton of the ABC current affairs programme 'Nationwide'. Mr Combe further agreed that he had 'backgrounded' a number of journalists earlier that night at about 8.30 p.m. It is not clear which journalists received that ' backgrounding', but Mr Combe agreed, again under cross-examination by Counsel for the Government, that he gave his side of the background concerning his relationship with Mr Ivanov to Mr Richard Carleton at about midnight on 11 May. In the course of doing so, he told Mr Carleton that he had been a guest at Mr Ivanov's house, that conversations there had been recorded, and that earlier on 11 May he, Combe, had been confronted by the Government with parts of the Transcripts of those conversations. Mr Combe also gave interviews to television journalists, including Mr Laurie Oakes of Channel 10, as he went to his car on 12 May to travel to his week-end home on the south coast of New South Wales. Perhaps the clearest example of 'backgrounding' by Mr Combe was that which he afforded to Mr Gregory Hywood, a journalist employed by the 'Financial Review'. Mr Hywood's evidence was that Mr Combe made certain statements to him at about 7 .00 p.m. on 11 May, on the basis of which he wrote this passage in an article published in the 'Financial Review' of 12 May: It is understood that Mr Combe's acceptane is based on information previously not know (sic) to him-on Mr Ivanov's KGB activities. Sources close to Mr Combe said that while he accepts that Mr Ivanov might have been attempting to use him as a source, he was in no way compromised. Mr Combe's 'backgrounding' of journalists, in breach of his part of the agreement reached that day between him and the Government, effectively frustrated the whole purpose of the agreement (5.72). Paragraph 5.72 reads- 5.72 As indicated in 5.70, Mr Combe unequivocally accepted that the ' backgrounding' in which he engaged on the night of 11 May was a breach of his part of the agreement unless it had been excused by some earlier breach by the Government. I consider that no other view could be taken having regard to what I have found in 5.60 and 5.62 was the agreement, and to what was involved in ' backgrounding' in the second sense, described in 5.71, in which Mr Combe used and understood it. Furthermore, it is clear that the 'backgrounding', however it occurred, effectively frustrated the purpose of the agreement of 11 May which, as I have noted in 5.65, was to allow public speculation and controversy about Mr Combe's relationship with Mr Ivanov, and the Government's actions in respect of it, gradually to die down in the face of continued refusal by the major participants to comment after the Prime Minister had made the agreed statement. At some time between 8.30 a.m. and 9.00 p.m. on the evening of 11 May, Mr Richard Carleton was recorded as saying in that night's edition of 'Nationwide', after recounting certain parts of the agreed statement by the Prime Minister, ' Unfathomably Mr Combe has said he understands and accepts. Well maybe it is not unfathomable though. Mr Combe has told some of his friends here in Canberra tonight he has a wife and kids and he's got to live in this town.' Articles in the daily Press which appeared on the next morning, 12 May, including the ' Sydney Morning Herald' the Melbourne 'Age' and the 'Canberra Times' equally clearly purported to be based on information which could only have come directly or indirectly from Mr Combe. His Honour finds that no statement was made or action taken by the Government, in breach of the agreement. The final matter concerns the actual or alleged disclosure of various matters by certain individual Ministers. He has found that my conversations with Mr Butler and Mr Farmer in connection with their proposed partnership with Mr Combe were exactly as I described them in my evidence and were neither unauthorised nor improper (7.63). Paragraph 7.63 reads- 7.63 The disclosures made by the Prime Minister were neither unauthorised or improper. This will no doubt cause great distress to the Opposition which, in the course of its continuing attempts to vilify me and the Government in our handling of this whole affair suggested that I had somehow acted quite improperly in my communications with Mr Butler and Mr Farmer. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of his statements in this House on 22 September 1983 in which he accused the Government, and in particular me, of self-contradiction and public deception, and accused me of ringing cronies to tip them off. I await his apology. The Royal Commissioner has found also that conversations on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, involved no impropriety (7.64), and that a conversation by the Minister for Housing and Construction, the Hon. Chris Hurford, was not unauthorised or improper (7.67). Paragraph 7.64 reads- 7.64 On 5 April 1983, Mr Bowen had a conversation with Mr Combe in King's Hall, Parliament House. This conversation antedated the matters into which I am required to inquire by paragraph (c) of the Terms of Reference and in no way impinges upon them. Mr Bowen had a further conversation with Mr E. Walsh at the Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport on 28 April 1983. These conversations are dealt with in Appendix VI. I have concluded that they involved no impropriety on the part of Mr Bowen. Paragraph 7.67 reads- 7.67 The Prime Minister gave evidence that once a decision had been taken by the Cabinet, and, impliedly, later by the Ministry, he expected and would require that Ministers would start to give effect to those decisions. Mr Hurford's communication to Mr Farmer of the effect of the Ministry decision should be viewed in this light. I consider that it was merely part of the process of implementing the decision and not an unauthorised or improper disclosure. Only in respect of one Minister, the then Special Minister of State, the Hon. Mick Young, is there an adverse finding to which I shall return. Generally speaking, His Honour found that 'the Government was, at all times, sensitive to the implications for national security of some of the decisions it had made and which were embodied in Decision 321 (NIS). It also realised the need to prevent, as far as possible, damage to Mr Combe through the public linking of his name with Mr Ivanov' (3.30). Paragraph 3.30 reads- 3.30 The Government was, at all times, sensitive to the implications for national security of some of the decisions it had made and which were embodied in Decision 321 (NIS). It also realised the need to prevent, as far as possible, damage to Mr Combe through the public linking of his name with Mr Ivanov. Accordingly, care was taken in drafting the decision to avoid the use of Mr Combe's name. Further, the Minute received very restricted circulation. Future Action in Relation to Mr Combe The Royal Commissioner has considered what action, if any, should now be taken by the Government in relation to Mr Combe by reference to national security considerations. He is of the view that all the circumstances associated with the expulsion of Ivanov, the establishment of the Royal Commission, and the attendant publicity, make it quite unlikely that any further attempt would be made to cultivate Mr Combe, and would also alert Mr Combe to the dangers of any apparent attempt at cultivation (8.5). Paragraph 8.5 reads- 8.5 The matter which remains to be considered is whether any problem is likely to arise in the future giving rise to national security considerations relevant to Mr Combe's access to Ministers. The evidence of the Director-General and the other ASIO officers confirms my view that all the circumstances associated with the expulsion of Mr Ivanov, including the publicity given to that expulsion, and the establishment of this Royal Commission and the publicity given to it and to its hearings, make it quite unlikely that any further attempt would be made to cultivate Mr Combe, and would also alert Mr Combe to the dangers of any apparent attempt at cultivation. Mr Combe could not now be regarded as a potential asset by the KGB. He concludes that the national security considerations which led the Cabinet Committee to decide that Ministers should not make use of Mr Combe's consultancy services no longer apply and do not now call for a limitation on his access to Ministers (8.7). He makes it clear that he is not expressing an opinion about any action by the Government in relation to its attitude to Mr Combe or any other person as a lobbyist (8.8). Paragraphs 8.7 and 8.8 read- 8.7 I have accordingly concluded that the national security considerations which led NISC to decide that Ministers should not make use of Mr Combe's consultancy services no longer apply and do not now call for, or justify, a limitation on his access to Ministers. 8.8 The decision of NISC of 21 April in respect of Mr Combe's access based on national security grounds still stands and is publicly known. While it stands, it is a stigma on Mr Combe's reputation and an impediment to his livelihood. In a light of the evidence which has been adduced before this Commission and my findings on that evidence, it is my opinion that it would be appropriate for that stigma and that impediment to be removed. One way to remove them would be for NISC formally to make a declaration in terms of 8.7, but there may be other equally appropriate ways of achieving this end. I make it clear, if it is not clear enough already, that I am expressing no opinion whatsoever about any action by the Government in relation to its attitude to Mr Combe or any other person as a lobbyist, and, in particular, as to whether Ministers should or should not see Mr Combe in his capacity as a lobbyist or consultant. The decisions that Ministers should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Mr Combe of course have had to be reconsidered in the light of subsequent developments, including the Royal Commission, and decisions of the Government, which are being announced separately, on dealings with lobbyists genrally. The Government agrees and, as recommended by the Royal Commissioner, now affirms that the national security considerations which led to the decision that I should inform other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Mr Combe no longer apply and are not now relevant to Mr Combe's access to Ministers. There is thus no present national security reason for a bar on dealings by Ministers with Mr Combe. Whether they do deal with him as a lobbyist is a matter for Ministers' discretion in the light of the events that have transpired, the findings of the Royal Commissioner in respect of Mr Combe and his evidence, and the Government's general policy in relation to lobbyists. For my own part, I have already made clear my policy to deal not with lobbyists but with principals. The guidelines for Ministers and officials in dealing with lobbyists, issued today, reflect this approach. Mr Justice Hope has concluded that no occasion arises for the payment of compensation to Mr Combe. On his findings on the evidence, any loss Mr Combe suffered in his business and in his reputation did not flow from any wrongful act or failure by ASIO or the National and International Security Committee of Cabinet. Mr Justice Hope records that what the Government did in the present case was 'to act bona fide for valid national security reasons, and Mr Combe contributed to his own injury to a significant extent' (8.9). Paragraph 8.9 reads- 8.9 Counsel for Mr Combe submitted that I should recommend to the Government that it pay compensation to Mr Combe in respect of any loss which he may have suffered as a result of othe decision of NISC. I have concluded that I should not recommend the payment of compensation. I have no doubt that Mr Combe suffered loss, both in his business and in his reputation. However, on my findings on the evidence, that loss did not flow from any wrongful act by ASIO or NISC, from any failure by NISC to hear Mr Combe when it should have heard him , or from any breach by the Government of the agreement that was reached between Mr Combe and the Government on 11 May because: (a) NISC was justified in making the decision it did concerning Mr Combe's access to Ministers; (b) Although there was no legal requirement to give Mr Combe an opportunity to be heard, steps had been put in train on 2 May to hear Mr Combe's side of the case; and (c) Events having overtaken the process of that hearing and the agreement having been reached on 11 May, the breaking down of that agreement is to be attributed to Mr Combe. The suffering of injury by individuals as a consequence of action by the Government, or a government authority, taken in the national interest, is often an unhappy result. However, what the Government did in the present case was to act bona fide for valid national security reasons, and Mr Combe contributed to his own injury to a significant extent. In my opinion, no occasion for compensation arises. The Government accepts the Royal Commission's conclusion in this respect and will not compensate Mr Combe other than for the legal costs he has incurred. The Government has already met, or has been in the process of meeting, the reasonable legal costs incurred by Mr Combe in the Royal Commission. Payments in respect of his counsel have been on the same basis as those for the Commonwealth 's own counsel. The Role of ASIO The actions and performance of ASIO in the affair have come under very close scrutiny. It should be stated that in most relevant respects ASIO's conduct has not found to be wanting. It has been shown to have acted reasonably and responsibly in following Ivanov's activities and in raising with the Government its concern at the developing relationship between Ivanov and Mr Combe. In particular, the Royal Commissioner observes (2.41) that: ASIO's identification of Ivanov as a KGB officer was achieved through careful and professional analysis; ASIO adopted a cautious and objective attitude to Mr Combe's relationship with Ivanov, as when the Director-General refrained from mentioning Mr Combe's name in a briefing of the then Attorney-General on 3 February 1983; before 21 April 1983, Mr Combe was not the target of any surveillance by ASIO; the Director-General acted responsibly in deciding on 5 April to notify me of his concern, although given the delay before I could see him it would have been proper for him to have sought an appointment with the Attorney-General; there is no doubt that ASIO's conclusion that Mr Ivanov's relationship with Mr Combe was such as to have serious implications for national security was correct ; with the qualifications indicated in the report, the Director-General's presentation to me was adequate, objective and fair. Paragraph 2.41 reads- 2.41 As will become apparent in later sections of my report, there were certain errors and misconceptions contained in some of the information provided by Mr Barnett to the Prime Minister at their meeting in the afternoon of 20 April. The nature and significance of those errors and misconceptions will be examined later. Before turning to the response of the Government to ASIO's case, I make the following observations of ASIO's handling of the matter up to and including Mr Barnett's meeting with the Prime Minister on 20 April- (i) ASIO's detection and identification of Mr Ivanov as a KGB officer less than 12 months after he arrived in Australia was achieved through a process of careful and professional analysis. Its identification of Mr Ivanov was correct and was confirmed to be so in early 1983. (ii) When ASIO formed its opinion as to Mr Ivanov's intentions in regard to Mr Combe, it adopted a cautions and objective attitude to Mr Combe's relationship with Mr Ivanov. It was conscious of Mr Combe's position both in political circles and the community generally, and avoided taking any precipitate action which might have unfairly affected Mr Combe. An example of this occurred on 3 February 1983 when the Director-General of Security deliberately refrained from mentioning Mr Combe's name in a routine briefing of the former Attorney-General, Senator the Honourable P. Durack, during which the activities of Mr Ivanov were outlined. (iii) There is no evidence that, before 21 April 1983, Mr Combe was the target of any surveillance by ASIO. To the extent to which ASIO made observations of Mr Combe's movements and activities, they were entirely incidental to its surveillance of Mr Ivanov and other Soviet officials. (iv) The Director-General of Security acted responsibly and within the provisions of sub-s. 17 (1) of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 in deciding, on 5 April, to notify the Prime Minister of his concern. However, after he was advised that the Prime Minister would be unable to see him for almost two weeks it would have been proper for him to have sought an appointment with the Attorney-General, who was the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act. It is now clear that no damage to the national security occurred as a result of the delay in briefing the Prime Minister. However, this judgment is made with hindsight. The potential damage to national security from delay was serious. (v) On the material available to ASIO on 20 April there is no doubt that its conclusion that Mr Ivanov's relationship with Mr Combe was such as to have serious implications for national security was correct. Those implications are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. (vi) The evidence satisfies me that it was reasonably open for ASIO to conclude that there were grave dangers in attempting to acquaint Mr Combe with any of the relevant material before communicating with the Government. Not only were the opinions about Mr Combe's likely reaction to such an approach overwhelmingly against making it, but the information which ASIO gleaned from his conversation of 4 March with Mr Ivanov entitled it to conclude that Mr Combe would probably be hostile to an approach from ASIO. ASIO's view as confirmed by the Prime Minister who rejected the notion of counselling Mr Combe on security grounds amongst other reasons. (vii) with the qualifications indicated in 4.110 to 4.113 and Appendix V Mr Barnett's presentation to the Prime Minister was adequate, objective and fair. He was aware of the delicacy required in putting to a Prime Minister that a close political colleague had become involved with a Soviet spy. He showed an appreciation of the sensitivity of the whole matter and did not fail to declare the interest of ASIO in achieving the public expulsion of Mr Ivanov with concomitant publicity and kudos for ASIO. The report records that a number of errors were made by ASIO in the presentation of its case to Ministers but says that, whether considered separately or together, they were of peripheral significance in its case (4.112) . Nonetheless, the report indicates that the greatest care must be exercised when ASIO takes a matter to the Government, particularly when its presentation may adversely affect a private citizen (4.113). Paragraphs 4.112 and 4.113 read- 4.112 I have thus far dealt separately with each of the errors or alleged errors . The further question arises whether the whole of the evidence concerning what I have found were errors should have produced a different result. In my opinion, it should not have done so. None of the errors went to what the Prime Minister called the main thrust of ASIO's case. Whether considered separately or together , they were of peripheral significance in the case that ASIO presented, and on which I am satisfied that NISC acted. 4.113 The greatest care must be exercised when ASIO takes a matter to a responsible Minister or Cabinet Committee, particularly when its presentation may adversely affect a private citizen. Undoubtedly, intelligence officers have to draw inferences and make assessments on the basis of primary facts which, ideally, should first be fully verified. Where verification is necessarily incomplete, the areas of possible error should be kept as small as possible, and indentified in the course of the presentation to the Minister or Committee. There are in this respect, and in one or two other areas noted in the report, lessons to be learned by ASIO from this whole episode. The Government expects, and will demand, nothing but the highest standards of performance. Mr Justice Hope will have a further opportunity to comment on ASIO and its general performance in his wider report on the security and intelligence agencies. He indicates (page 218, paragraph 2) that he will be making recommendations in that report on: the need for ASIO to review its practices and procedures in order to reduce the possibility of error and to reveal, when reporting in the exercise of its functions, the existence of any such possibility; and the need for ASIO to review its practices and procedures when reporting matters to Ministers and particularly when a report will or may result in action by Ministers. The paragraph reads- 2. The evidence reveals a need for legislative or other action in respect of several matters. However, it is not appropriate that I make recommendations for such action in my report on Term of Reference (c). I shall make recommendations on these matters in my report on Terms of Reference (a) and (b). They include: (a) The need for ASIO to review its practices and procedures in order to reduce the possibility of error and to reveal, when reporting in the exercise of its functions, the existence of any such possibility. (b) The need for ASIO to review its practices and procedures when reporting matters to Ministers, and particularly when a report will or may result in action by Ministers. (c) The need for the establishment of a statutory procedure enabling an independent body to decide, in appropriate cases, whether, and, if so, how an Australian citizen or resident should be provided with an opportunity to be heard when a report by ASIO may result in action adverse to the interests of that citizen or resident. Further matters relating to ASIO are dealt with in the seperate volume of appendices, for which the Royal Commissioner has recommended limited distribution. In accordance with Mr Justice Hope's recommendation, that volume has not been tabled. Consistent with the practice in these matters, the Government has made the confidential volume available to the Leader of the Opposition. On this occasion also, having regard to the nature of the report, directed as it is to the conduct of the Government, the confidential volume has been made available to the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) and to the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp). The Position of Mr Young Mr Young's actions on 21 and 22 April were unauthorised and, as Mr Justice Hope has found in the case of the 21 April disclosure, improper. He recognised the seriousness of that breach of Cabinet confidentiality and his failure to inform me of the fact by tendering his resignation on 14 July. Thus the facts and the judgment on those facts are not in dispute. What is relevant now is the future position of Mr Young. Let me make a number of points quite clear. First, it is clear now as it always was, that Mick Young never intended to place national security at risk, and the national security was not in fact damaged by his disclosures-although, of course, this in no way excuses those actions. It is clear that these were based on an error of personal judgment from which he has now learnt, and which I am sure will not be repeated. Second, he made his comments to Mr Walsh on the basis that, as Mr Hope observed : 'He wanted to protect his friend'. Those of us who know him so well would clearly understand the value he has always placed on mateship. Let me emphasise that this does not excuse his actions, but I do suggest strongly it has relevance for the assessment to be made as to the penalty he should suffer. In other words, we are not dealing with an ill-intentioned man. We are dealing with a good man and, in my judgment, a very good man, who has made a mistake which he now regrets. Mr Young has already paid a high price for that mistake. Third, I ask honourable members to contemplate what has been involved for him in his resignation from the Government. He has spent 30 years working in and for the Labor movement. So many of those latter years have been specifically directed at helping to achieve a Federal Labor government, with the totally legitimate expectation of being an important member of that Government. I say clearly and unequivocally that for no Minister in my Government could the events of 14 July, and the exclusion from that Ministry after only four months, have been more devastating than for Mick Young. I think no one in this place has been closer to him over the years than I have, but I do not suggest that even I can fully understand what he, and his family, have suffered. Taking all these considerations into account I believe Mr Young should have the opportunity of returning to this Government by the time the Parliament resumes in 1984. Nominations for the ministerial vacancy will be called in the new year. I make it clear that not only should Mr Young be free to nominate for that vacancy, but also he will have my full support in such nomination. He would have served at least a six months penalty for a mistake which, as Justice Hope observes, was made after only six weeks in office. As I have said Mr Young is a very good man. He is also an extremely able man and I do not intend that this Government or this country should, for any longer than the period I have designated, be denied the value of his ministerial services. Conclusion The circumstances of this whole affair have brought no pleasure to the Government, and we recognise that in the unfolding of the affair, and its attendant publicity, individuals who have been involved or affected have been subjected to varying degrees of inconvenience intrusion and hurt. But the issues which arose and which the Government had to face-which because of the way events unfolded ultimately had to be exposed to full review-were of the utmost seriousness. The legitimate and strong public interest in the issues and in the Government's handling of them called in time for the most thorough examination in order to clear the air. That has now been done by the Royal Commission. The Government accepts full responsibility for, and stands behind, the actions it took. It acknowledges the valuable public service the Royal Commission has performed in clarifying for the record the events in question and the way in which they were handled. The Royal Commission is proceeding with its broader inquiry into the role and activities of the intelligence community generally. I present the following paper: Report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies-Ministerial Statement, 6 December 1983. Report Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members I present a document on the Government decisions about the establishment of a general register of lobbyists, a register of lobbyists who act on behalf of foreign governments and their agencies and guidelines for Ministers regarding their dealings with lobbyists. Report and Ministerial Statement Report Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide) —by leave-The House will be aware that on 14 July I resigned from Cabinet. I did so after the Government lawyers indicated that what I had told Mr E. J. Walsh on the night of 21 April might be said to constitute an offence under the Crimes act. I thought it inappropriate to retain my portfolio or simply to stand aside from it but remain a member of Cabinet while this question had not been settled. It has now been disposed of. On 29 August the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) decided, after consultation with the Solicitor-General, not to proceed. The Commissioner in his report accepts that this is the end of the matter. I should add that my own legal advice from the very start has been that no offence under the Crimes Act was committed. The submissions to the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies to this effect made on my behalf have been well publicised and I will not canvass them here. I have acknowledged in the House my mistake in making the comments I made to Mr Cameron on the day of Mr Ivanov's expulsion. I agree there was an error of judgment in relation to my conversation with Mr Walsh the night before. The Royal Commissioner now unequivocally states that there is no evidence that national security was damaged by what I said. As the Commissioner recognises in his report, my future is a political question which must be decided by my political colleagues. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 38 minutes. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.48) —The Opposition welcomes the report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies . I should like to congratulate Mr Justice Hope and his staff on completing what must have been a very onerous task indeed. Mr Speaker, you may recall that it was the Opposition which first called for the establishment of a judicial inquiry so that the facts surrounding the expulsion of Ivanov and the involvement of David Combe could be established. We now have the Commissioner's findings on those facts. We must bear in mind that, at root, it was the incompetence of this Government which brought about the call for this judicial inquiry and, at root, there are essentially three findings: Firstly, that Ivanov should have been expelled-an action with which we have always concurred; secondly, that Mr Combe compromised himself in his dealings with Mr Ivanov; and, thirdly, that the former Special Minister of State acted not only in an unauthorised manner but in an improper manner in a matter of national security. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has read to this Parliament a 25-page statement. Pages 22 to 24 nail this Government for what it is-unprincipled, irresponsible, delinquent and negligent. The Royal Commission has found- Mr Keating —Can't you read a report? Mr PEACOCK —I can read a report. Let me remind the Minister that the Royal Commission has found that a Minister of this Government acted improperly. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) may mislead this Parliament in relation to projections of his Department. worse than that, however, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has been found to have acted improperly on a matter of national security-not some projection, not some mere forecast, as honourable members opposite would put it, but on a matter relating to the very security of this country. The Prime Minister has said that the issues that arose were 'of the utmost seriousness' and the Royal Commissioner has found that a Minister of the Hawke Government was unauthorised in his behaviour and acted improperly in regard to national security. As a consequence, the whole Government is affected by this finding, and no amount of whitewash can cover that. It is a finding that goes to the security of Australia. Yet despite this finding, the Prime Minister has indicated his support for the return of the honourable member for Port Adelaide to the Ministry. Let us look at the very serious findings against the former Special Minister of State by Mr Justice Hope. As a member of the National and International Security Committee of Cabinet, probably the most important and sensitive group of Ministers in the land, the honourable member for Port Adelaide deliberately sought out an old friend, Eric Walsh, and told him what Ministers had discussed and decided in the utmost secrecy. He told him, firstly, that Mr Walsh should be careful in dealing with Mr Matheson; secondly, the Government had had an important meeting that day and that a Russian was going to be expelled the followintg day; thirdly, Mr Combe appeared to have an association with the Russian who was going to be expelled; fourthly, there had been Australian Security Intelligence Organisation tapes at the meeting; and, fifthly, at the meeting Mr Bowen, the Deputy Prime Minsiter, had been antagonistic to Mr Matheson. These were no idle remarks. They were a calculated action, as the Prime Minister puts it, to help a mate; that is, to protect his mate's business interests and those of his clients. It was made before the decision to expel Ivanov was announced and while David Combe was under surveillance. Mr Justice Hope found these disclosures to be both unauthorised and improper. He found that both convention and the law required Ministers to protect the confidentiality of Cabinet's deliberations, especially where matters of the nation's security are involved. Mr Justice Hope accepted the submission by counsel for the honourable member for Port Adeliade that it might prejudice subsequent proceedings against the honourable member were he to express an opinion whether the honourable member breached section 79 (3) of the crimes Act. Nevertheless, in considering the questions whether the honourable member for Port Adeliade made improper and unathorised disclosures of confidential matters, he addressed his mind to each of the elements of section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act and concluded that each of those elements was breached. I repeat: His Honour concluded that each of those elements of the Crimes Act was breached-no idle finding. The Government, however, is now attempting to whitewash the Minister's remarks by saying that he did not intend to damage national security and that he in fact had not damaged national security. At least two things can be said about this. First, the Minister was a member of the security committee of Cabinet and he knew his obligations and his duty of secrecy. He may not have intended to damage national security-and Mr Justice Hope addresses that very point-but he clearly did intend to breach Cabinet confidentiality on matters relating to national security. He deliberately took Mr Walsh aside and deliberately told him what had been disclosed. He knew the risks; yet he took the chance allegedly for the sake of a mate. He thereby disqualified and continues to disqualify himself from office. Secondly, as His Honour so plainly points out, potential not actual damage is the criteria for judging breaches of national security. Let me go to pages 195 and 196 of His Honour's report, where His Honour says: I am also of the view that the potential, rather than the actual, damage to the national security is what must be considered in determining impropriety. If an unauthorised disclosure by a Cabinet Minister gives rise to a real risk of damage to national security, then the fact that little or no damage results does not diminish any impropriety in the disclosure. In the present case there is no evidence that national security was damaged by what Mr Young said to Mr Walsh. However, there was, in my opinion a real risk that significant damage could have resulted from the disclosures. Although given in confidence, there was clearly a risk that the information might be repeated, as it was in fact repeated. It is a common fact of life that many people regard information given to them in confidence as something which they are entitled to pass on in confidence. As with all such disclosures, once the confidence had been broken, the information could have reached members of the Soviet Mission, including Mr Ivanov. It could also have made public the involvement of Mr Combe and Mr Matheson in the circumstances leading to the explulsion, and have revealed the existence of ASIO tapes as part of the material relied upon for the expulsion. In my opinion, these potential consequences gave rise to a real danger of significant damage to national security. Furthermore, having regard to the content of the disclosures, I do not think it is relevant for this purpose that the expulsion of Mr Ivanov was to be announced the next day, or that, in the event, speculation, and Mr Combe's own statements, associated him with the expulsion. The Prime Minister's action in welcoming back the honourable member for Port Adelaide as a Minister for the future continues his persistent efforts since May to protect the position of the former Special Minister of State in this Parliament. Since May the Prime Minister has known about the disclosures to Mr Cameron and others at lunch. Since July he has known of the even more serious disclosures-serious in the extreme, as described by his Honour-to Eric Walsh and the fact that the Minister had misled him and caused him, the Prime Minister, to mislead the Parliament. Since August he has had the opinions of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) on the appropriate course of action in such circumstances. Yet he has done nothing. He has kept the former Minister's seat warm. He has defended the former Minister. He continues to defend him. I remind the House that the Attorney-General, in recommending to the Prime Minister that the honourable member for Port Adelaide not be prosecuted under the Crimes Act, had in mind: Sanctions that have been traditionally regarded as applicable and appropriate to Ministers are not those of the criminal law but the political sanctions of resignation, of dismissal. The Attorney-General examined the matter and concluded that these traditional political sanctions should apply rather than a gaol term, which he regarded as too severe. The Attorney-General was not drawing a distincition between some resignation and some suspension. He was drawing a distinction between a resignation and a two-year gaol term and, thereby, disqualification from the Parliament. The Prime Minister's refusal to recommend that Caucus fill the ministerial vacancy, and his whitewashing of the former Minister's actions, deserve the strongest censure of this Parliament. There is no excuse which the Prime Minister might invent which can be a defence for the behaviour of the former Minister. The Prime Minister clearly knows the correct course of action but he is not prepared to take it. He is prepared to sacrifice national security . He is prepared to sacrifice the integrity of his Government rather than risk losing face before the Caucus. Let me go back to a couple of other statements of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said today that the former Special Minister of State had been a Minister for only six weeks. He also said that he was simply telling a mate. He adduced those as reasons for his support for the Minister to return to the Cabinet. It is interesting that he should mention that he was a Minister for only six weeks and he was only telling a mate. I have already informed the House what His Honour thought about telling any person of the elements determined by the Cabinet and what the potential damage to the national security was. The Prime Minister raised these two points which His Honour dealt with at page 196 of his report. His Honour said, at page 196, paragraph 7.37: It is relevant to consider the circumstances under which Mr Young made the disclosures. However, while those circumstances justify his view that he was simply helping an old friend, they do not, in my opinion, diminish what I regard as the impropriety of the disclosures. His Honour says that telling an old friend is, nevertheless, improper. The Prime Minister says that telling an old mate is a reason to bring him back into the Ministry. His Honour then goes on and says: It is also relevant that Mr Young had been a Minister for a period of less than six weeks and that this was his first experience of such a case. I have concluded that, notwithstanding this short Ministerial experience, it should have been apparent to Mr Young that he should not make the disclosures. The Prime Minister comes into this Parliament today, presents a report and adduces argument, of course in the face of overwhelming numbers, that Mr Young should return to the Ministry. Notwithstanding what His Honour has said on both grounds, this Prime Minister puts forward as arguments for a return of the former Minister, that that ought not only not be contemplated but also that there was no justification for taking those elements into account. In fact he found that they did not in any way move him from his finding that what was done by the Minister was improper. Honourable members should bear in mind that His Honour was not applying some mild test. I ask honourable members to look at page 186 of the report that has been tabled. There His Honour addresses himself to a very stringent test before he goes on to make his finding of an unauthorised and improper action relating to national security. At page 186 paragraph 7.16 he says: In coming to my findings I have borne in mind the submission of Counsel for Mr Young that the serious consequences of a finding adverse to Mr Young require me to be satisfied considerably beyond the bare balance of probabilities. He was, therefore, applying a far more stringent test in the determination of his findings than the mere balance of probabilities. He unquestionably found, beyond reasonable doubt, that this man acted in an unauthorised manner, that he acted improperly and with potential damage to national security. He applied such a stringent test with the very though in mind that this Prime Minister has sought to avert-namely, the serious consequences of an adverse finding against Mr Young. He has applied the stringent test. He has made adverse findings. He would therefore expect there to be, in his own words, 'serious consequences'. In fact, the consequences of the finding led the Prime Minister to conclude that he should bring Mick back as soon as possible. Some following of a royal commission report! Some application of principle! Some conduct in circumstances where the most stringent test can be applied! Before I leave this point I direct honourable members to page 194 of the report . There His Honour looks, in paragraph 7.33, at the alleged minimal breaches. Honourable members have heard for some time, and have read statements abounding from members of the Caucus, that what Mick did was a pretty minimal thing, that nothing much happened. In conjunction with the very severe test that His Honour applied, let us have a look at addressing this question of minimal breaches. It is important to recognise how assiduous His Honour was in making the finding of impropriety. He says, at page 194: It follows from what I have said that disclosures made by Mr Young were unauthorised. Then he goes on: Were they, or any of them, improper? It is clear that, although an act may involve a breach of duty, the breach may be so minimal that the act could not be regarded as improper. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the breach may have a seriousness that brings it within the concept of impropriety. The difficulty is in drawing the line between these two positions. Firstly, there was a minimal breach and, secondly, a serious breach. His Honour goes on: As often happens, when a line of this kind has to be drawn, there is a grey area between what, by general agreement, falls short of impropriety and what, on any reasonsable view, is clearly improper. He then goes on to say: I approach the matter on the basis that I will not characterise as improper a disclosure which I consider to be within that grey area. In other words, His Honour has said: 'Minimal disclosures are to be put to one side. Grey areas between minimal and serious disclosures are to be put to one side'. I am looking at serious disclosures, serious breaches, breaches that could affect the national security, the security of this nation, matters way beyond the alleged minimal matters about which the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) was interjecting a moment ago. With the allegiances that he has shown to outside powers it is not surprising that he should interject in this way. With the purchase and the leverage that he would seek to bring to bear on bringing back a man who has breached national security again it is not surprising that he would interject in this manner. In the view of every member of the Opposition and I am sure in the view of any objective observer, if pressed, because it is the only natural reading of the findings of His Honour, there can be no entertainment of the return of the former Minister to the Ministry of the Hawke Government. The fact is that the former Minister's actions were found to be improper and were found to prejudice the national security. Let us remember that the former Minister's disclosures to Mr Walsh were not inadvertent or mistaken, they were deliberate. His concealment of what he had done was not casual, it was design. His deception of the Prime Minister, his colleagues, this Parliament and the Australian people was not by chance, it was calculated. His ultimate resignation was not the act of a man facing up to the consequences of his actions, it was an admission of guilt forced out of him after it was manifest to him that he had been discovered and was about to be exposed. The findings of the Royal Commission, and they are important in themselves, related to the impropriety and the breaches of national security. Implicit in those last remarks I have just made is something perhaps even more fundamental to this Parliament: There is no greater dereliction of duty by a Minister than misleading this Parliament, or so misleading his Prime Minister that he, in turn , misleads the Parliament. Beyond the findings of the Royal Commission is a wider setting. That is, the former Minister did not disclose his actions to the House and, as a consequence, this Parliament was misled by the Prime Minister in particular on 17 May, when the Prime Minister stated that the Special Minister of State acted 'with honour and propriety'. For all that I criticise the Prime Minister, he would not have said that had the former Special Minister of State told him the truth. The fact was that there was non-disclosure and it led the Prime Minister-I say inadvertently on this issue-to describe the Special Minister of State as a man of honour and propriety when that Special Minister of State knew of the actions that have been brought out through our actions here and, more particularly, by the findings of the Royal Commission. There can be no greater transgression than for a Minister to mislead the Parliament or cause it to be misled. The Prime Minister's lack of parliamentary experience is no excuse for ignoring the fundamental principles and ethics of the Westminster system. By his actions the honourable member for Port Adelaide has disqualified himself from holding the trust of the Parliament and the people of Australia and those who entertain the notion of return to the Ministry treat the Parliament with absolute contempt . We can lend no support whatsoever to the viewpoint that he was inexperienced, not can Mr Justice Hope lend any support to that. We can lend no support to the view that it was a minimal action, nor does Mr Justice Hope lend any support to that. We can lend no support to the view that there was no damage to national security, nor does Mr Justice Hope. When all this information is put together- the finding that a Minister acted improperly, that a Minister acted in an unauthorised way relating to the security of this nation, the fact that there is no more fundamental duty on a government than ensuring the security of the people of this nation and that that duty has been breached-for the Prime Minister comes into this Parliament with a 25-page written statement and concludes that his poor, inexperienced mate, who has worked for the Labor movement for 30 years, ought to be allowed back into the Ministry is nothing less than delinquency and an absolute disgrace. No amount of argument will override the fact that if the Government concludes in that way there is no doubt it is putting the count of numbers for Mick ahead of its own propriety. No wonder the Government is running scared. We listened for 38 minutes to an apologia from this Prime Minister. He tries to interject repeatedly now because each point is coming home. They are going to drive home day after day, and the only person he can get to sit beside him is the most descredited Minister in his Government, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who was partly responsible for the virtual destruction of the Australian Labor Party on Saturday. He has but one responsibility and that is for Aboriginal affairs. What did the electorate think of him in the Northern Territory on Saturday? Poor Clyde is the only one who will sit beside this Prime Minister in the defence of his actions. Another Minister has come in to assist the Prime Minister. This is interesting. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) the other Minister who has come to sit beside him, is the fellow who has assisted in keeping Mick's ministerial seat warm. The fact is that the Prime Minister would never fill that vacancy because he knew the Caucus would roll him . The final point is that the Prime Minister has been fulminating and blustering as to how this report would damage the Opposition. He was looking forward with great relish to the day when he could table this report which would be so embarrassing to the Opposition. Yet all he could do was refer to a statement of mine in the Parliament, evidently on 22 September. I have made many more statements than that. On one occasion he sought to muzzle me, as he sought to muzzle the Gallery in reporting his mendacious cover-up. He referred in conclusion to my statement of 22 September. On 22 September I brought on a matter of public importance in this Parliament. It dealt with matters that related to uranium, the double standards and the deception of the Prime Minister and his Government. It dealt with a whole range of matters from uranium to taxation. I also indicated the duplicity and the double standards of a man getting on the phone and ringing Mr Farmer and Mr Butler because he knew they were associated with Mr Combe or about to enter into an association. Mr Howard —They were his mates. Mr PEACOCK —They were his mates, and I put it that they were his cronies. But he did not ring Mr Barnett or Mr Drysdale. Such was the application of principle that this man held that he would ring those associated with the Labor Party. I am expected to apologise. Indeed, he says: 'I await his apology'. He will be waiting until hell freezes over because, wittingly or unwittingly, the occupant of the office of Prime Minister misled this Parliament. Wittingly or unwittingly , he kept the former Minister's seat warm. Wittingly or unwittingly, he has shown more attention for the former Minister's alleged cleverness than his honesty. Clearly, the Prime Minister attaches greater importance to bowing to the numbers in Caucus than abiding by the law. Clearly, the Prime Minister attaches greater importance to appeasing his Party than to protecting the integrity of his Government or the security of this nation. Today is not the last the Parliament will hear of this matter. It goes to the heart of Australia's security. It goes to the heart, indeed the propriety, of government, and it goes to the heart of the proper discharge of government. The cavalier disregard for convention, the law, security and propriety cannot and will not be condoned by this Opposition. The Prime Minister has tabled in this Parliament a report and indicated that he will work for one of the three transgressors-first, Ivanov, expelled from the country; secondly, Combe, crucified, and justifiably, according to this report; and, thirdly, a man who has the potential to damage the security of this nation, whom the Prime Minister proposes to resurrect. It is an act of delinquency as I said, but, worse than that, is it is an act of mendacity to say in this Parliament that poor Mick should be excused because he had worked for the Labor movement for 30 years, was an inexperienced fellow and had been in the ministry for only six weeks. Mr Justice Hope deals with every argument. Mr Hawke —Look at the faces behind you. Mr PEACOCK —I would rather look at the Prime Minister's face. It is the face of a man who has been associated with five electoral defeats since he came to that position. He can be reminded of it today, as we will remind him of the fact that he is pushing water uphill to try to convince the Australian people that Mick Young is nothing more than a Minister who breached national security. The Prime Minister, in seeking to bring back the honourable member, reflects on the integrity of the Parliament, destroys the conventions of the Parliament and disregards the security of the nation. He has not at any time directed his attention to the propriety of Government itself. The mere fact that he is inexperienced in leading the nation in this Parliament is no more an excuse than was inexperience to the former Special Minister of State. I conclude with the following remarks: There can be no condoning of the request of this Parliament by the Prime Minister for support for the proposition that a man who not only acted in an unauthorised way but also breached improperly the national security should return within a matter of weeks to his Cabinet. If he does, the nation will properly assert that the Prime Minister is transgressing principle, transgressing propriety and putting at risk again the security of this nation. This man was found, not by members who sit opposite the Prime Minister and who are political enemies but by a royal commission, to have been acting improperly and in breach of national security. There can be no stronger argument than that used by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and counsel assisting the Royal Commission. They submitted to the Royal Commission that the honourable member for Port Adelaide had breached the Crimes Act. The fact is that His Honour went through each element of that submission and concluded in the manner that I adduced earlier. No amount of argument can lead us to the viewpoint that the honourable member for Port Adelaide ought to be permitted to return to the Ministry. Quite to the contrary; the Prime Minister is transgressing propriety and the proper conduct of government and qualifying the proper standards of government. He will be condemned for his statement to Parliament today and, beyond that, for the support he is rendering for those who wish to bring the honourable member for Port Adelaide back into the Government. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.24) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) began his pathetic dissertation by saying that it was the incompetence of this Government which brought about the call for a judicial inquiry. The report gives the lie to that statement. The report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies finds-the Leader of the Opposition was so ungracious as not to refer to this-that the Government was totally competent in its handling of the issue. It did not just find, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his opening remarks, that Mr Ivanov should be expelled and that Combe compromised himself or made references to the honourable member for Port Adelaide. It basically found that everything the Government did was correct. That was the principal finding in the report. It is the Leader of the Opposition who is condemned by the report. He said: 'There is a stench about this Government, a stench of dishonesty, a stench of duplicity, a stench of downright deceit, subterfuge and cover-up'? Where is the subterfuge and cover-up in these recommendations? Mr Justice Hope has given this Government a clean bill of health and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. This report is not about the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young); it is about the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition. He is the man who could not surmount the national security considerations by dragging this matter into the public domain. He is the man who could not get above the tawdry politics of his Party and decided to exploit the issue publicly, to drag it into the public domain. He could not rise over his own opportunism or his incapacity to lead. He made a public issue of the matter. He did so when he permitted the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) to name David Combe in this Parliament. If there is any guilt attaching to this affair it attaches to the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable member for New England. The Leader of the Opposition was extensively briefed. Mr Justice Hope confirmed that he was extensively briefed. In fact, on 12 May the Leader of the Opposition said : I received a briefing from him . . . that is, the Prime Minister- I advised the Prime Minister on that occasion that, in regard to the briefing given to me about Mr Combe, I would say nothing at all and he concurred. Who breached that agreement, that commitment? It was the Leader of the Opposition. He breached that agreement. He is the guilty man. Mr Peacock —That is a lie. Mr KEATING —That is not a lie; that is the truth. Mr Peacock —You are a liar. Mr KEATING —It is the truth. The Leader of the Opposition breached that agreement for tawdry political considerations. Mr Peacock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for that to be withdrawn. This charge has been made in this Parliament. When I made a personal explanation on this matter it was never challenged. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr KEATING —I will not withdraw, so the Leader of the Opposition may as well sit down and save his breath. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will tell you why I will not withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the Leader of the Opposition taking a point of order? Mr Peacock —No, I find the Treasurer's remark offensive and I ask for it to be withdrawn. You are required to have it withdrawn, because I find it offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would like to establish what the Leader of the Opposition would like to have withdrawn. Mr Peacock —He is alleging that I breached a confidential briefing, which is not in accord with this. I did not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable gentleman to-- Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no matter which the Leader of the Opposition can require you to have me withdrawn. The report confirms this allegation. I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker. It confirms that the Leader of the Opposition could not surmount the tawdry political characteristics of himself and his Party in dragging David Combe's name into the Parliament. He dragged David Combe's name into the Parliament-- Mr Peacock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask for the withdrawal of two statements by the Treasurer. Firstly, he alleged that I was 'a guilty man ', which I regard as offensive and ask to be withdrawn. Secondly, I ask for the withdrawal of the allegation that I breached a briefing by the Prime Minister, a matter which neither the Prime Minister nor the Deputy Prime Minister, when they listened to my personal explanation in May, contested in any way at all. Mr KEATING —This is not a point of-- The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I cannot uphold the proposition that those remarks can be considered offensive. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, let me substantiate the claim I make. Mr Groom —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer you to standing orders 76 and 77. Standing order 76 states: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. Standing order 77 states: When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a Member who is addressing the Chair or by a Member who is present, the Speaker shall intervene. I submit that the words that have been used are highly offensive and disorderly and should be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I think it is debatable whether the words are offensive. Nevertheless, to facilitate debate, I ask the Minister to consider withdrawing those remarks. Mr KEATING —There is a major point of principle about the whole of the proceedings of the Commission on this very point. On the day in question, 10 May , three questions were asked by the Opposition. One of those questions named David Combe. There was a sequence about those questions. The Opposition had taken a decision to drag David Combe's name into the public arena. That is why there is a Royal Commission report. There would have been no Royal Commision, no report and no briefing of Mr Combe by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ) had the Leader of the Opposition not breached the commitment he gave, with his colleagues, to the Prime Minister. That is the principal point. Mr Peacock —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The facts speak for themselves. Never on any occasion did I advise any of these people. The tactic is obvious. The Government wants to utilise this matter as some sort of subterfuge. Just as the Treasurer has lied about his projections he will lie about this matter and so I will forget about it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Dr Everingham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I submit that the remarks made about the Leader of the Opposition are very tame compared to the remarks the Leader of the Opposition made throughout his speech. He should make a personal explanation at the appropriate time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr KEATING —I am not prepared even to bother responding to the Leader of the Opposition's insane stupidities. I make this principal point: This report finds that the Government was totally competent in the way it handled the expulsion of Mr Ivanov and the surveillance of Mr Combe. It would not have been a public matter, there would have been no Royal Commission report, but for the fact that the Opposition exposed this issue publicly by naming David Combe in Parliament, and deliberately. After that, the Government did everything to protect Mr Combe' s name. It was only after exposure by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and Jumping Jack Flash from the National Party that-- Mr Groom —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I took a point of order earlier and I thought that you were about to rule on it. I ask for a ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I have ruled that the point of order is not upheld. Mr KEATING —I make this point: After Mr Combe was exposed in the Parliament by the Deputy Leader of the National Party the Government arranged, the following day, to have Mr Combe briefed by the Attorney-General. Let me read what Mr Justice Hope said about this. He was asked: Was any and what agreement or arrangement concluded on 11th May between Combe and the Attorney-General or any other member or members of the Government as to subsequent disclosure of or comments upon Combe's connection with Ivanov and the Government's action in respect thereof? The Commissioner stated: Yes. An agreement that the Prime Minister would make an agreed statement to the House of Representatives on 11 May 1983 and that neither the Government nor Mr Combe would make any public comment on the statement or its subject matter except that a statement (to be approved by the Attorney-General) might be made by Mr Combe, about his proposed defamation action in respect of . . . the Daily Mirror. If Yes to 21, did: (a) the Government (otherwise than by action or statement in Parliament); . . . resile in any and what way from such agreement or understanding? No. No was the answer from Mr Justice Hope. The Government did not try to exploit the issue. That answer reveals that the Government did everything to protect Mr Combe. He was exposed by the Opposition. Even when this agreement was made the Government did everything to honour it. Only one group stands condemned by the Hope Commission report-the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition. When we look at the role of the Prime Minister in this matter we should remember the quotation by the Leader of the Opposition, for which the Prime Minister has reasonably asked for an apology, that the Prime Minister was accused of dishonesty, duplicity and deceit in tipping off his mates. He said: The Government stands condemned for both its duplicity and double talk and consequently this Prime Minister stands condemned for his deceitfulness, his double dealing and his down-right duplicity. What do we find when this matter is reviewed by the Commission? The Commission has cleared the Prime Minister absolutely of any charge of deceitfulness, tipping off his mates or anything else. Let me read what the report said. It states: It is therefore open to find, and I do find, that the Prime Minister had implied authority to communicate with Mr Butler and Mr Farmer. The communications were, in fact, justified by the need to ensure that, as far as practicable, the purposes of the NISC decision were achieved. Moreover, what the Prime Minister has done was, in effect, confirmed by both the Cabinet and the Ministry, for he told each of these bodies about his communication on 26 April and 2 May respectively. The disclosures made by the Prime Minister were neither unauthorised nor improper. Where is the apology from the Leader of the Opposition for saying that the Prime Minister was deceitful and that he tipped off his mates? The Leader of the Opposition is the one who stands condemned by this report, nobody else. He is the only person here who stands condemned by the findings of the Royal Commission. As we read through the report what becomes patently obvious is that the Royal Commission has exonerated the Government in every respect and the Prime Minister in particular. The Prime Minister is entitled to ask for an apology. He is entitled to get it. Where is the Opposition's integrity? There is no integrity. The Leader of the Opposition stands in the middle of his vile insinuations. He was taken into confidence; he was briefed. He knew the Government was right; he said it was right but he thought the Government was in trouble and he could see a tawdry political advantage. He gave a commitment to confidentiality; he broke that commitment and this report condemns him. That is the issue. So much for bipartisanship! The Leader of the Opposition talked about the honourable member for Port Adelaide and where he stands in respect of national security. It may be worth reminding the House of the Leader of the Opposition's own little brush with this issue in 1977 when he exposed the names of five Central Intelligence Agency agents operating in Australia. He lied his way out of that too. When he was exposed on the radio program PM and when he was asked about Mr Philip Agee who had named five CIA agents, he confirmed the names of the five CIA agents. He then said that all he was confirming was the fact Mr Agee had named them and not their names. In fact, the breach that he accuses the member for Port Adelaide of is a breach that he himself committed. If we are talking about slinking back into ministries, if we are talking about returning to government, if we are talking about crawling back into government, let us look at the Sheridan sheets issue of the Leader of the Opposition or his resignation because of the former Prime Minister. Back he came. Yet he is now suggesting that Mr Young should stay out forever. Mr Justice Hope said that there was no danger to national security. On that basis our judgment is that the penance which is to be extracted from any honourable member in this situation has been appropriate in the public opprobriation and the months out of the Cabinet. The honourable member is just as entitled to come back into the Cabinet as the Leader of the Opposition was entitled to go back into the Fraser Cabinet. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.39) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today has seriously misled the House and distorted the findings of Mr Justice Hope concerning the activities of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The honourable member for Port Adelaide will rejoin the Ministry only at the cost of the standing, the integrity and the honesty of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has caved in to pressure to reinstate the honourable member for Port Adelaide. The Prime Minister is nothing more than a dupe, a puppet, to pressures from those people who have no respect for the principles and the proprieties of this Parliament. In fact, it can be seen as a corruption of the Westminster system of government as we have known it in this country. The Prime Minister will be judged by the people of Australia to lack the courage of his earlier convictions, when he displayed so clearly the reasons why the honourable member for Port Adelaide resigned from the Ministry and why he accepted that resignation. We are not discussing here today the integrity of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. We all know about that. What we are discussing today is the man who, in the words of Mr Justice Hope, acted in ways the potential consequences of which 'gave rise to a real danger of significant damage to national security' . They are the strongest words of condemnation of a Minister of the Federal Government of this country that I have ever heard. Let no one forget those words . That is no whitewash of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Let us not have those words smothered over by the pious platitudes the Prime Minister has sought to use today to exonerate this man. Mr Justice Hope says that the honourable member's disclosures related to a matter of national security. He says that in determining impropriety potential rather than actual damage to national security must be considered. He goes on in these words: If an unauthorised disclosure by a Cabinet minister gives rise to a real risk of damage to national security, then the fact that little or no damage results does not diminish any impropriety in the disclosure. Mr Justice Hope says there is no evidence that national security was in fact damaged in this case. But he adds that there was a real risk that significant damage could have resulted from the disclosures by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. After listing the possible damage which could have occurred, Mr Justice Hope says this: In my opinion, these potential consequences gave rise to a real danger of significant damage to national security. Here is a man who breached his oath of secrecy and acted in a manner that put at risk national security. He is clearly a person not fit to hold high office in the Government of this country. Today we have the Prime Minister saying: 'Oh, poor old Mick. He really didn't mean any harm. It was just an error of judgment. After all, he'd only been a Minister for six weeks. He didn't know that Ministers are supposed to keep Cabinet matters and security matters quiet. Anyway, he was only trying to help his old mate Eric. Sure, he didn't mean to do any harm. After all, there wasn't really any damage done to national security. Mick was just plain stupid, and we can't expect him to go on paying the price of his stupidity for ever. He's worked for the Labor Party for 30 years, so I'm going to have him back in the Ministry after Christmas'. That is what the Prime Minister is putting to us today, and it is not good enough. It is a disgrace, and the Prime Minister and his Government will be judged and censured for it. When the Prime Minister puts that proposition to us he is denying his own reasons for accepting the honourable member's resignation earlier this year. Those reasons, which we had already drawn from the Prime Minister's own judgments in August, and which are now confirmed by the report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, provide overwhelming support for the view that the honourable member for Port Adelaide can have no place of honour in the Government of this country. This is, after all, the man who threatened national security. He is the man who acted improperly as a Minister of the Crown. He is the man who kept secret from his own Prime Minister the security breach he had committed. He is the man who misled this Parliament about what he had done. He is the man who misled his own Prime Minister about what he had done. He is the man who, by his silence, caused the Prime Minister to mislead the Parliament and the nation. He is the man who thought he could get away with a serious wrongdoing, a serious breach of ministerial standards and, indeed, a threat to national security, and the man who owned up, who offered his resignation, only after he had been found out. Until he was found out the honourable member for Port Adelaide was quite prepared to keep quiet in the hope that what he had done would not be discovered . But when he got wind of the fact that Mr Justice Hope's Royal Commission was on to him he got round to the Prime Minister's office as fast as he could and offered to resign. That is the kind of man whose return to the Ministry is now being proposed. If he does return to the Ministry it will not be the honourable member's integrity that will be further damaged; it will be the Prime Minister's integrity, and the integrity of every member of the Caucus who supports the reinstatement of a man who misled Parliament, who threatened national security, who acted improperly, and who owned up to his wrong doing only after he was found out. If that is the kind of man this Government is content to have in its Ministry, the Government will pay the price. But it is to the Prime Minister's integrity and honesty that the real challenge is made today. It was a pathetic ducking of his duty for the Prime Minister to attack the honourable member for Port Adelaide, as he did repeatedly in the House on 23 August, and then to hand over all responsibility for the honourable member's future to Mr Justice Hope. The suitability or otherwise of the honourable member for Port Adelaide to be a Minister was perfectly clear even before Mr Justice Hope became involved. It involves much more than the matters covered by Mr Justice Hope, although his findings, his conclusions, make those misdemeanours ever so much more serious. What are the facts on which the honourable member should be judged? Let me give them to the House from the Prime Minister's own speech of 23 August. The Prime Minister told the House 10 times in the course of that speech-not once or twice, or three times, but 10 times-that the honourable member for Port Adelaide had acted improperly. This is the same Prime Minister who today pleads for mercy for the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Let me run through the 10 statements the Prime Minister made within that speech about the Minister: Certain actions by the honourable member for Port Adelaide were improper and unauthorised. The honourable member did certain things which, as I say, were improper. The Minister came to me because he recognised he had breached Cabinet confidentiality and that he had not informed me of that fact. He came to see me and pointed out that he had breached confidentiality and he had not informed me of it. The honourable member had acted improperly. He had acted without authorisation. He recognised that, and he came to the Prime Minister. Those are the first five of the Prime Minister's reasons why the honourable member for Port Adelaide was not suitable to be a Minister. Those are the facts, from the Prime Minister's own mouth, on which the honourable member for Port Adelaide should be judged. But so that there would be no misunderstanding as to the seriousness of the honourable member's actions, the Prime Minister thought he had better tell us about them again. He said: I repeat that the honourable member has made no attempt to disguise the fact that he acted improperly in this matter. He recognised on 14 July that the action he had taken in April warranted his resignation. It took him a long time to wake up to that. But even that was not enough for the Prime Minister. So he told us again: The former Minister has clearly indicated that he acted improperly. He made a grievous mistake for which he has resigned and for which I accepted his resignation. Just in case nine times were not enough, the Prime Minister slipped in a final reference to the inappropriate action that the honourable member followed. By that time, even Labor members had got the message that the honourable member for Port Adelaide had acted improperly, that he had breached confidentially, that he had kept that breach secret from the Prime Minister, that he had misled the Prime Minister, he had misled the Parliament and the nation, and that he had caused the Prime Minister to mislead the Parliament and that, when he found that his improper action had been discovered, he than went and told the Prime Minister. The first of the charges, the accusations, made against the honourable member for Port Adelaide by the Prime Minister was that he acted improperly and without authorisation. Is that charge now to be simply put aside so that the Prime Minister can meet the pressures placed upon him? The Prime Minister's character must be under serious question today. Has something happened to show that the honourable member for Port Adelaide did not act improperly and without authorisation? To the contrary, the actions of the honourable member now have been described by Mr Justice Hope as giving rise to a real danger of significant damage to national security. The second charge made by the Prime Minister was that the honourable member breached Cabinet confidentiality-one of the most serious, if not the most serious of all, things a Minister can do. The Cabinet system is built on the foundation of confidentiality. If Ministers cannot be trusted to honour that confidentiality, then the Cabinet system will break down. Yet that is what this man did. That is what the Prime Minister told us he did-he breached Cabinet confidentiality. Is this the kind of man the Prime Minister is now to have in his Ministry? If it is, then it is the Prime Minister whose integrity and standards come into question. But not only did the Prime Minister say that the honourable member had breached Cabinet confidentiality; he said the honourable member had compounded that impropriety by not telling the Prime Minister about it when he realised what he had done. Now the Prime Minister says that all that does not matter; poor Mick really did not know any better. He was only new at the job and he did not understand that there are certain standards that have to be maintained. Here is a man who acted improperly and without authority and who threatened national security, and the Prime Minister says that he is good enough for him. If those are the standards this Prime Minister is to apply, then heaven help this Government and this country. It is significant that Mr Justice Hope does not accept the Prime Minister's view that, after all, the honourable member was only trying to help a friend when he made an unauthorised and improper disclosure of national security matters. Mr Justice Hope says he cannot accept that view. We can all understand matters of mateship and friendship, but there are higher demands on a Prime Minister than simply recognising those qualities. There are higher demands on a Prime Minister than going easy on some who has given long service to the Party. The demands on the Prime Minister are designed to ensure, in the national interest, that only people of the highest integrity are members of his Ministry. The facts which the Prime Minister put before us in August, the facts which have become public knowledge as a result of Mr Justice Hope's report, make the honourable member for Port Adelaide quite unfit and unsuitable to be a member of his Ministry. All those facts make it equally clear that if the Prime Minister accepts such an unfit person into his Ministry, then the Prime Minister in turn is unfit to hold the office he holds at the moment. The office of Prime Minister demands the highest integrity. The Prime Minister tells us, every chance he gets , that he is overflowing with honesty and integrity. The Prime Minister stands condemned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —in reply-The tabling of the report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and this debate today bring to a conclusion a very sad affair. It is interesting that the only issue on which the Opposition has sought to concentrate is that referring to my colleague the former Special Minister of State, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), an issue which is, at the most, peripheral and probably irrelevant to the consideration of the burden of this report. The central issue in this inquiry and that which is at the heart of this report is not the conduct of the honourable member for Port Adelaide but rather the conduct of the Government in dealing with an issue which Mr Justice Hope has identified as and which the Government acknowledged at the time was a matter of great national security concern, that is, the expulsion of a Russian diplomat. Yet up to this point the Opposition, after going through hundreds of pages of that report, has not been able to concentrate at all on the central issues which are the concern of the report. The reason for that is perfectly obvious: The Opposition does not want to have to acknowledge that the report of the Royal Commissioner in fact has endorsed the actions of the Government at that time. Instead, the Opposition has decided to concentrate on an issue which, as I say, is at most peripheral and probably irrelevant to the findings of this report. That in no way is intended to belittle or denigrate the findings of the Royal Commissioner in relation to the honourable member for Port Adelaide. What the Opposition was hoping for, of course, was that in this whole confused affair something would fall out which would be embarrassing to the Government or , more particularly, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Nothing of the sort has occurred, and the Opposition has had to scramble around in the wreckage of its own case to try to manufacture something which will be of some note or notoriety . We have not heard anything. We have not seen any attempt to crank up the crocodile tears which members of the Opposition shed for David Combe only a few short months ago. David Combe became one of the central characters in this issue for three reasons and three reasons only. The first reason is the neglect of the former Government-the present Opposition parties-to provide adequate guarantees of the protection of civil liberties when it was reforming the Australian Security Intelligence organisation and legislating the controls on ASIO. At the time that legislation was passing through the Parliament, we-the Opposition at the time-beseeched the Government to amend the provisions in a way which would ensure the proper conduct of ASIO and the proper auditing of ASIO and, more particularly, in a way which would give a right to ordinary citizens who were the subject of assessments to question those assessments and at least be informed of them. Had the then Government agreed to the amendments we proposed in opposition, this whole saga might have taken on an entirely different character. The second reason why David Combe became a central character in this issue is, of course, his own actions. I am not for one moment trying to detract from that fact. The Royal Commissioner has indicated that it was as a result of Mr Combe's decision to abrogate the agreement he had with the Government and to brief journalists in respect of the agreement with the Government which, in part, led to his becoming publicly associated with this matter. But that was not the main reason. The main reason, and the reason the Opposition will always have to answer for, is that the Opposition deliberately contrived to drag David Combe's name into this saga. We will all recall that on 10 May there was a series of orchestrated questions which involved the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and, most particularly, the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). The Deputy Leader of the National Party quite deliberately decided to associate in this House for the first time David Combe's name with that of the then expelled Russian diplomat. In those circumstances we are perfectly entitled to ask the simple question: How was it that Opposition members were able to orchestrate those questions? How were they able to connect the names of Combe and Ivanov if it were not for the fact that they had had confidential briefings in respect of these matters? The Prime Minister had quite properly arranged for the leaders of the Opposition parties to be briefed on this matter and to be informed about the association between Combe and Ivanov. But it was only as a result of the action of the Deputy Leader of the National Party that this matter came into this house . As I said, it was the result of an orchestrated series of questions and then the quite deliberate and quite outrageous display in a question from the Deputy Leader of the National Party that those two names were associated in this House for the first time. Once those names were associated in this House the matter was then off and running and there was no stopping the fallout of events which occurred at that time. It was then a matter on which the media could freely report and it was a matter which required a series of people to enter into debate. Then the Opposition had the gall, having precipitated a situation in which Combe was for the first time associated with this matter, publicly and under privilege to say that the Government was trampling on the civil liberties of Mr David Combe. The Australian Labor Party, while in opposition and in government, made elaborate preparations to ensure that to the greatest possible extent the civil liberties of David Combe were protected. That scheme was blown apart first by the negligence of the former Government in refusing to provide the proper safeguards in the ASIO legislation and then, secondly, by the quite deliberate attempt to connect the two people in the way in which it had. But more breathtaking than the fact that the Opposition has now abandoned David Combe is the fact that it is not the slightest bit concerned about his civil liberties any more, even though they were an essential part of its attack on the Government and, particularly, on the Prime Minister. All that is for nought. All we hear about now is the honourable member for Port Adelaide. It is absolutely obscene for the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) to give us a lecture on the precedent of the Westminister system and the principles which ought to be upheld in this country. He is the leader of the 'no resignation' party. It is impossible for a National Party Minister to resign. On only one occasion in recent times has a National Party Minister resigned. That was when the now Deputy Leader of the National Party was within a hair's breadth of Long Bay. When he faced serious charges he was finally prevailed upon to stand down during the currency of that court case. Of course, as soon as it was over he was re- instated. Let us look at another couple of instances. The former Prime Minister tried to set a very high standard when he set off in government back in 1976. He decided that he would have no truck with any Minister who transgressed in any way the high standards of conduct which he sought to establish for his Government. Of course he got a lot of practice at sacking Liberal Ministers. Let us look at the list. There was Garland, Lynch, Withers, MacKellar and Moore, just to mention a few. A series of Liberal Ministers got the boot from the former Prime Minister. He had to confront reality and stare it starkly in the face when he attempted to sack a Country Party Minister. Let us remember a couple of instances involving Country Party Ministers and royal commissions. I remind the House about Mr Nixon and the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. That Royal Commission was required to report on, amongst other things, whether allegations in relation to the export of meat were dealt with by the then Minster for Primary Industry in a manner that was adequate and effective. What did the Royal Commissioner say? The Royal Commissioner said that the Minister did not deal with these allegations adequately and effectively and that the Minister had been grossly negligent in his conduct. What was the reaction of the Government and the Prime Minister at the time? The Prime Minister was faced with the dreadful reality of a royal commission exposing a National Party Minister as incompetent. Absolute panic prevailed in the Government. The Prime Minister knew that he was under the thumb of the National Party-he dared not move against it-so he took the only other course which was available to him. Of course, it was typically and characteristically a cowardly course. He decided, instead of sacking the Minister, to sack the Royal Commissioner. He turned on the Royal Commissioner with a venom which he certainly would not have visited upon a National Party Minister and only rarely visited upon his own Liberal Ministers. That is the kind of precedent which the Leader of the National Party now has to confront when he lectures us about what to do with Ministers when confronted with reports of royal commissioners. Then, of course, there is the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Is it not strange that we always come back to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) when dealing with impropriety or ministerial misconduct? Of course we recall that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations reported in September 1981 that the Australian Dairy Corporation had contravened the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade arrangements on minimum export prices. I should have thought that it was a fairly serious matter for this country to be in breach of international treaties and international undertakings which were solemnly entered into. What did the Committee-not a committee of Labor Party senators but a committee comprising Liberal Party and National Party senators as well-find? It found that Australia was in breach of those undertakings. It further found that the responsible Minister, the now Deputy Leader of the National Party, had knowledge of the breach at least as early as September 1976 and did nothing. This was despite the Minister's numerous subseqent statement in this House denying any knowledge of the breach. The then Minister was prepared not only to condone a breach of an international treaty or an international undertaking-something which threatened the trading relationships and the great dairy export industry of this country-but also to deny that he knew anything about it. The National Party is absolutely the last party on earth which can lecture anyone, particularly this Party, about ministerial propriety. That Party has an absolutely shabby record. It is prepared to support its former Ministers through thick and thin. Not only would it not sack them but also it would not even have them stand aside. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby) —by leave-I take a heightened interest in this matter because two of the principal players in what could be termed a black, political drama now have their bases in South Australia, as does the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), or have been South Australian residents, as has been Mr Combe, who has been pilloried in this circumstance because of his association with a now expelled Russian diplomat. This report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies is available simply because of the work of the Opposition in this House in exposing the corrupt attitude the Government had adopted to the Westminster system, as has been referred to by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) in this House, and the failure of the honourable member for Port Adelaide as the Special Minister of State to observe the proprieties of his office. This report cuts at the very heart of the Government in the sense that a Minister has been found to have betrayed the secrets and the confidentiality of the National and International Security Committee. We have now found that the deception which was practiced then has not ceased. Today the honourable member for Port Adelaide, selectively quoting from Mr Justice Hope's report, has continued to further a deception in which this Government is now involved. The honourable member for Port Adelaide said that the Royal Commissioner accepts that this is the end of the matter. I hotly dispute that Mr Justice Hope's report accepts that this is the end of the matter. The honourable member for Port Adelaide also went on to say that there was no evidence that national security was damaged by what he had said. Both of those statements are intended to circumvent the impact of the justice's report and to minimise the extremely serious factor of which the honourable member for Port Adelaide has been found guilty. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), through his actions, has mortally wounded a man who brought him to power, Mr David Combe. No one in the Australian Labor Party did more to place the Prime Minister where he is now than Mr David Combe when he served as an officer of the Australian Labor Party. Today the Prime Minister has adopted as one of his closest friends, in giving every reason he could find and devise at the end of his report to this House, the man who betrayed the National and International Security Committee and, through that Committee, the people of Australia. Mr Holding —Rubbish! Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who protests, has only to read the report of the Commission to find that that is the case. The Government is now saying that it is all the fault of the Opposition and of lobbyists. What does it intend to do? It has brought into this House a description of what it is determined to do about lobbyists-to register them. In so registering them it is pointing the finger at lobbyists as one of the prime causes for the betrayal of the secrets of the NISC. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can say to you that that is a false trail the Government is deliberately laying to take the heat off one of its Ministers who has had to resign for misleading the House and betraying the Committee and whom the Prime Minister now must bring back into his Government because the numbers in Caucus dictate it. The Prime Minister has no strength within his party to withstand the numbers the honourable member for Port Adelaide has been able to gain in his fight for resurrection after his indiscretion. What are we discussing? Why are we discussing this matter? What is the basic question? That is to be found on page 180 of the Royal Commissioner's report where he states: The evidence indicates that on three separate occasions he disclosed- referring to the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the former Special Minister of State- to persons who were not members of NISC, the Ministry or his staff, certain information which had come into his possession at one or more of the meetings of NISC on 20 and 21 April. The report goes on to state: Mr Young has admitted that, at some time during the evening and while they were still at the home of Dr and Mrs Fitzgerald, he took Mr Walsh aside and told him . . . that the Government had that day been looking at a problem concerning Mr Matheson and Mr Combe. The evidence goes on to state: Later that same evening, in the carpark of the motel at which Mr and Mrs Young were staying, Mr Young again spoke to Mr Walsh about the matters which he had mentioned earlier. If nothing, the Special Minister of State was persistent. The report states: I was told in evidence by Mr Young that 'I reiterated what I had told him earlier, about being careful, so I also added that in quite some unrelated way at the morning's discussions, Mr Bowen seemed to be enormously antagonistic to Mr Matheson. The leak went on, as Mr Young sought out a lobbyist-he was not sought by that lobbyist-to divulge some of the most secret matters Cabinet could ever deal with . I want to make this point: He sought out that lobbyist. For whatever reason he may have said he did so, the fact was that the initiative was the Minister's. Mr Holding —At a dinner party. Mr STEELE HALL —And in the carpark of the motel, if the Minister wants a second occasion. In fact, the report gives him plenty of occasions. If we are talking about the responsibility of lobbyists in this matter and who sought out lobbyists we could turn to the Prime Minister, could we not? We could turn to page 201 of Mr Justice Hope's report where he states: On the morning of Sunday 24 April 1983, the Prime Minister telephoned from Melbourne to Mr William Butler in Canberra. He told Mr Butler that he had a difficult matter to raise with him. Mr Cadman —Another mate. Mr STEELE HALL —Another mate, no doubt. If the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs wants more indication of whose responsibility it was and whether it was lobbyists or Ministers who took the initiative, he will find that the Prime Minister also telephoned Mr Farmer. How amazing! These damn lobbyists kept on bothering the Ministers by having their telephone numbers in the book. Ministers could ring them up and say: 'I have some national security secrets to tell you'. For that responsibility of Ministers the Government wants to put the lobbyists in this country in a shackle, to tie them hand and foot, and say to the community of Australia: 'There are the culprits. It is not the Minister who had to resign because he misled the Parliament and betrayed the public's and the National and International Security Committee's secrets. It is not him; it is those lobbyists who had their telephone numbers in the book. They are the ones we want to get at.' Of course, the matter does not end there. The report goes on to talk of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who, in a conversation with Mr Farmer, also had something to say about the same matter. Mr Holding —What did the Commission say about all this? Tell us the findings. Mr STEELE HALL —I will tell the Minister in a minute what the Commission had to say about them and it is much more serious than what has been alluded to so far. I would say that what is required is not a register of lobbyists: It is a register of trustworthy Ministers. That is what we need in this Parliament. That is what we want a register for. Let us not have a special list. Let us have an ordinary list and put an asterisk against the names of those who leak or those who do not leak-those who have loose lips or those who do not have loose lips. That is what we need to know. There has been more than one instance than the one we are discussing today. But this is the one we are discussing and it is time to go in some more detail if honourable members want to read what the Commissioner has said-to the Commissioner's report. One can quote, as I have done before, the obvious beginning when the Commissioner found that evidence indicated that on three separate occasions the Special Minister of State leaked classified information from the National and International Security Committee. The Commissioner goes on very interestingly. I advise anyone who regards this matter with any severity to read this. The Commissioner deals on page 193 with section 79 of the Crimes Act. He said: . . . it would be oppressive for me to record a finding (if that were the conclusion to which I came) that Mr Young had committed an offence under the section. I take that to mean that he would not want to prejudge any other action which might normally be taken in a court of law. Mr Cadman —The Attorney-General protected him. Mr STEELE HALL —I will come to that in a minute. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has protected him, but the Commissioner did not want to be oppressive or to prejudge any further action. This I find the most interesting part of the whole report. Having said that he did not want to be oppressive, he laid out what the Minister must have transgressed, all the issues he must have been involved in, to be subject to section 79 of the Crimes Act. Interestingly he starts his reference to this in this way: Notwithstanding the view which I have just expressed, the provisions of section 79 are relevant in considering the type of duty which a Minister may have in relation to confidential information. Sub-section 79 (3) makes it an offence for a person to communicate prescribed information . . . That is established; it is an offence to communicate prescribed information. In the next portion he goes on: . . . as far as relevant for present circumstances, to a person other than a person to whom he is authorised to communicate it. That is quite simple. One cannot communicate prescribed information. Then he defined prescribed information: . . . to include information which a person has obtained owing to his position as a person who holds office under the Queen . . . That is a description of it. Then in the next but one paragraph he says that the Minister holds office under the Queen. All these three things have dropped into place: It is prescribed information; it cannot be leaked; and the Minister holds office under the Queen. He then goes to perhaps the heart of it by referring to the duty to keep it secret. He says further on: However, sub-section 79 (1) provides its own criteria for determining whether the duty exists. Those criteria are the nature of the information and the circumstances under which it was obtained. In my opinion, that duty may be a legal duty but it may also be a duty not otherwise imposed by the law. On this construction of the provision, there has been a recognition by the legislature of a non-legal duty to which Ministers may be subject. I submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that all four major circumstances apply and that the former Minister was guilty of contravening section 79 of the Crimes Act under the descriptions given by Commissioner Hope. I find it most illuminating that the Commissioner said that he did not want to be oppressive by making a finding and then set out for all to read provisions which indicate that the former Special Minister for State was guilty and ought to have been charged. It is simply the Attorney-General who, on the most specious of arguments, so far has prevented the normal course of the law. We should again remind ourselves that one of the reasons given by the Attorney-General as to why his colleague should not stand trial for his action and his indiscretion was that, if found guilty, he might lose his seat. Could there be a more self-interested reason why one would not apply the law without fear or favour than that concern for a colleague? In this last couple of minutes I will refer to the deception which the Government is trying to practise in referring to lobbyists. This ought not to proceed through this House without longer debate than that which can be given to it here and now. The Government is to proceed with the worst form of registration of lobbyists. It will not require registration of firms lobbying on their own behalf but will require registration only of those who lobby the Government for reward on behalf of third parties. Registration will be voluntary but a lobbyist will not get any business and cannot see a Minister unless he is registered, which makes a mockery of the determination to register lobbyists at all. The Government has fallen for the worst of all forms of lobbying registration in that it will be ineffective because it will encompass only selected people and will be an offer which those who come within its ambit cannot afford to refuse. This is the greatest standover tactic I have ever seen used against a group of free individuals in this community. I reiterate: It is a deceptive move to try to take the heat off a government, the members of which today saw their Leader go against his better judgment and say that he will reinstate a Minister who, by this report, has been proven to be unsuitable to serve this country in that field. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent continuation of the debate. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(5.27) — When the Opposition expresses its concern for national security in this matter, it is bogus. When it expresses its concern for ministerial responsibility in this matter, it is bogus. Since this matter has been before this House the Opposition has conducted itself in a manner which is both contemptuous of a Prime Minister's responsibility for national security matters and contemptuous of the rights of the individuals involved. It has been contemptuous of the responsibility of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this matter in that it has constantly sought to provoke or to force him to make statements that properly, in the first instance, were within the Government's responsibility for national security. When the matter finally became a matter for public discussion by virtue of the fact that a royal commission was established-(Quorum formed) As I was saying before being interrupted, the Opposition's concern about national security matters and for the rights of individuals involved has been bogus. The evidence for that is provided by its performance when it first raised this matter in the House in a series of questions designed to link the name of Combe with Ivanov. Contrary to what the shadow Special Minister of State had to say, those names had not been linked in public. They had not been linked in public in any report. When the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who was a party to that strategy, subsequently explained that he heard of it from an Australian Associated Press report, he was making a misleading statement. I have checked that particular AAP report and there was no link in that report between the name of David Combe and that of Ivanov. That was teased forth in this place for no good purpose, as has subsequently been revealed by the Opposition. In addition, there has been a persistent attempt to provoke the Prime Minister to act in a fashion that is injudicious, both in an attempt to make him reveal matters that were properly matters held by the National and International Security Committee and properly matters held within the Government, and subsequently to compel the Prime Minister to reveal matters of detail to be dealt with by the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. The latest instance of that was on 23 September, quite recently, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) accused him of leaking to cronies and acting in an entirely improper manner. Of course, the Royal Commission has given the lie to that accusation. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he will not apologise until hell freezes over. I certainly hope that, for the honour of this House, there is a snow storm in hell tomorrow that will give him an opportunity to make an appropriate apology in this place. No reading of the Hope report can give any indication other than that that is what he ought to do in relation to that accusation. When the Prime Minister was forced to give at least some indication of what matters had been concerning the Government and to establish a royal commission, the Leader of the Opposition had the hide to come into this place on about 25 May and say that the fact the Prime Minister had got up in Parliament and given answers to questions which the Opposition had been asking was an injudicious act by the Prime Minister and ought not be tolerated in this House. As usual on national security matters, the Opposition was attempting to have it both ways. It is a shame because this Opposition, both in government and in opposition, has been completely unable to debate this matter in the way the Hope Royal Commission determined national security should be debated. I quote from page 38 of the report: Matters of national security ought to transcend party political considerations and should seldom be allowed to become subjects for partisan controversy. This Opposition, both in government in the 1960s and 1970s and earlier and in opposition, has been utterly incapable of conducting itself in a manner in which that has any reality at all. Throughout the period of the 1960s it covered itself in the cloak of national security, the cloak of the flag, to take partisan political points without any legitimate cause at all. It has, in government, seen the abuse of the security services, the use of the services for partisan political purposes. It has ruined the reputation of security services in the general Australian community, a reputation which this government is struggling to restore. The Opposition has the hide to come into this place and lecture the Government on its capacity to hold secrets when it has against its record the possibility of very serious and substantial security leaks that go to the very heart of our relationship with our allies and which compromise the integrity of security services. Members of the Opposition say nothing about national security matters. They can say nothing about the integrity with which this Government has conducted itself in this House on this matter. Indeed, they can say nothing about this Government 's handling of national security matters in regard to this report. I remind the House exactly what it is that the Hope Royal Commission has reported. It has reported that the Government was justified in expelling Valeriy Ivanov, a KGB officer, as it did on 22 April. It has found, as the National and International Security Committee of Cabinet then found, that David Combe's relationship with Valeriy Ivanov was such as to have serious implications for national security. It has found that the surveillance placed by the Government on Mr Combe and authorised on 21 April was appropriate and was terminated as soon as it reasonably should have been. It has found that it was proper for the NISC and the Prime Minister acting on national security grounds to have secured a decision from Cabinet and the Ministry that Ministers should not have professional dealings with Mr Combe. It has found that the Government acted properly in its dealings with Mr Combe on 11 May and was not obliged to give him an opportunity to state his case at any earlier time. It might have been anticipated by the general public that a party which, has been out of office, except for a period of some three years, for the last 30-odd years might, within six weeks of comming into office, make a few errors in relation to its handling of a sensitive national security matter. It could have been quite reasonable to anticipate that that was a serious possibility. We have now had reams and reams of evidence and a very lengthy report to demonstrate that that was not the case. When it came to handling national security matters, an inexperienced, new Government handled itself completely properly in the decisions it took and the course of action it pursued. That, of course, is not a matter for joyful reflection. It is simply a matter of noting that the Government has held to its responsibilities in this regard. Given that the shadow Special Minister of State found it necessary to impugn the particular calls that were made by the Prime Minister to Mr Farmer and Mr Butler, I feel obliged to read directly from the report what Mr Justice Hope had to say about that. There was a suggestion in what the shadow Special Minister of State had to say that there had been something improper in that regard. On page 205 the report states: It is therefore open to find that the Prime Minister had implied authority to comminicate with Mr Butler and Mr Farmer. The communications were, in fact, justified by the need to ensure that, as far as practicable, the purposes of the NISC decision were achieved. Moreover, what the Prime Minister had done was, in effect, comfirmed by both the Cabinet and the Ministry, for he told each of these bodies about his communications on 26 April and 2 May respectively. The disclosures made by the Prime Minister were neither unauthorised or improper. That is why we require an apology from the Leader of the Opposition. That is why we require some justification from the shadow Special Minister of State for the claims he has made. The Opposition has suggested that in some way, shape or form it has some type of mortgage on what is responsible behaviour and what is a responsible acceptance of ministerial responsibility in this place. What seems to have been forgotten in this debate is that when these matters were disclosed to the Prime Minister by the former Special Minister of State, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), the honourable member for Port Adelaide resigned. The honourable member for Port Adelaide is not a member of this Government. The honourable member for Port Adelaide has been out of this Government for some four months and, from the Prime Minister's statement, will remain out of it for some short while in the future. A political punishment, the type of punishment considered appropriate by the Royal Commissioner, has been applied to him in this case. When it has been found that he has been acting improperly, that matter has been dealt with. We may contrast that with certain practices in the recent past that require a little airing in this place. Some of them have already been dealt with by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) during the debate in this House but they require a run over now. Let me quote from the report of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry on the question of the behaviour of the previous Minister for Primary Industry. The report states: . . . The Minister did not deal with these allegations adequately and effectively. The Minister had been grossly negligent in his duties. Yet the Government's response was to tear apart that Royal Commissioner and his findings. It was not to go to Mr Nixon and suggest to him that in the circumstances he might stand down. It was to go to him and say: 'Don't worry about this. We will keep you in place and we will do over the mob that has caused you such embarrassment'. Then we had that all-party Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations inquiry involving the present Deputy Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England. It found that the Australian Dairy Corporation had contravened the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade arrangements on minimum export prices. A bit has been said in this chamber about misleading the Parliament. That Committee found that the Minister had knowledge of this breach as early as September 1976 and he did nothing. This was despite the Minister's numerous subsequent statements in this House denying any knowledge of the breach. It was despite his own subsequent statements that he regarded any breach of GATT as totally unacceptable. Opposition members are tending to lecture us on what ought to be appropriate ministerial action when a question of misleading Parliament, misleading the Prime Minister, or misleading the public has come before the Government. They are inviting us to take an example from their practice. In fact, we have not taken an example from their practice. The Minister volunteered his resignation in this matter in total contrast to the way in which the other side of the House has acted in a number of important matters. I could go on. I could take the question of the findings of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union on the effectiveness with which the Attorney-General's Department has operated over the years. The question of ministerial responsibility in that regard has drawn no response of resignation from any of the particular parties involved, and they remain on the front bench of the Liberal Party of Australia. A matter has been raised in the House on the question of lobbyists. The suggestion is that lobbyists have been made a scapegoat in this instance. That is nonsense. There has been a question of some regard in the community for some considerable time that an appropriate means of registering the people who undertake those activities and their relationship to government ought to be undertaken. It is not the intention thereby to eliminate that possibility being open to them, far from it; it is there to regularise that relationship between lobbyists and government. It is regularised in many other countries. These lobbyists would be given the importance and significance that they are assuming in the democratic process in this country, something which is entirely appropriate at this stage. It is not a question of making them a scapegoat; it is a question of making them responsible and responsive to the requirements of democratic practice. We have in front of us a sorry, shabby Opposition. There are no grounds for the claims it has been making. It is embarrassed by this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(5.42) —The standard of a government depends on the quality and the calibre of the people in it. There is no doubt that the standard of this Government is reflected in the findings of His Honour, Mr Justice Hope, the Royal Commissioner commissioned by this Government to look into Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. He has damned this Government, damned its Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and damned the man who, at the moment, is the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and who, we are told, is an imminent candidate for his own vacancy within Cabinet. We need to look at the character and quality of the Prime Minister's statement as well as the nature of the Royal Commissioner's findings. The Prime Minister has come into the House and attempted to seek some solace in those parts of the Royal Commissioner's report which endorse his Government's actions. We certainly need to go back to the genesis of the report. The genesis was that in the newspapers on a Sunday a comment was made by Mr Laurie Oakes about the associations of a former senior officer of the Australian Labor Party which was being, in some way, dissociated from the members of the Government. Honourable members will recall that on the Monday morning Mr Paul Kelly in the Sydney Morning Herald again nominated a senior official of the Australian Labor Party as being in a position of being specifically dissociated by the members of the Government from any future dealings with him. They say he did not name him. He did not name him, but let us take a look at it. Anyone around this place knew who that man was; everybody around the Gallery knew who that man was and everybody within the Labor Party knew who that man was. This report is addressed to the core of that matter. But this report reflects the fact that the Prime Minister selectively advised two lobbyists as to who that man was. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and the then Special Minister of State nominated who that man was. How is it that Mr Michael McHugh, Queen's Counsel, in evidence given to the Royal Commissioner, justified the advice given by the Minister for Housing and Construction to Mr Farmer on 2 May about denying access to Mr Combe on the basis that it was no longer confidential? How is it that somehow between 2 May when information was not confidential according to Mr Michael McHugh in the hands of the Minister for Housing and Construction it suddenly became confidential when it was the subject of a question by me on 10 May, eight days later in this House? Let us have a look at the question I asked and at the genesis of the whole matter. I asked: Has the Prime Minister instructed the members of his Government to dissociate themselves from the former Secretary to the Federal Australian Labor Party, Mr David Combe? If so, why? If there is a fault in that question, it was not in the form of the question but in the manner of the response. The manner of response ensured that everybody, for the first time, identified the fact that an allegation was being made about Mr David Combe's involvement in matters that were, in some way, associated with national security. We have now elevated the whole of the involvement of this Government from being one where it was able to go and talk to its cronies, to use the phrase of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), or to talk to its particular friends and associates, to use the phrase of the Prime Minister, to one where, instead of it just being a matter of polite discussion, it was a matter of those cronies being in a position to be told that there was a person with whom they should not associate and that it was quite proper for that discussion to take place, but it was totally improper for the Federal Parliament to be told anything about it. Let us then look at the findings and see where the Prime Minister comes down. On the opening page of this statement he pretends to whitewash the whole of the allegation. He states: The findings . . . are extensive, balanced and detailed. They amount to a complete endorsement of the actions my Government has taken . . . A complete endorsement. I ask: How can a complete endorsement constitute that which appears in chapter 7 of the report by the Royal Commissioner? I think it is essential that we all realise something of the origins of the charges that led the Prime Minister, at the very beginning of the whole affair, to write to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and ask for his opinion as to whether the then Special Minister of State may have involved the Commission of an offence under the Crimes Act 1914. As we all know, this forum is no place to argue a point of law. I think everyone in this House needs to understand two things: First, that the Attorney-General responded to that request from the Prime Minister. He said that it may be that, on Mr Young's evidence, an offence may not have been committed. He then stated: If, on the other hand, Mr Walsh's account were to prevail- I use the exact words- the question of the application of s. 79 (3) would be, in my view, much more finely balanved. Let us look at the letter. Again, I do not want to go into the basis of it but I do think it is worth quoting what Senator Evans said. He stated: This gives further weight- He is talking about the degree to which some charge should be made against the Special Minister of State, the then Special Minister of State, the present member for Port Adelaide, as to whether or not he breached the Crimes Act. Let us make no mistake about it; this is a matter of national security. There could be nothing more serious in the responsibilities of government. The Attorney- General responded and said: This gives futher weight- having looked at the question of whether or not a charge should be laid- to the argument that the traditional political sanctions are the appropriate ones for all but the most extraordinary and dangerous ministerial breaches of official secrecy. Taking all these considerations into account (and also bearing in mind, in turn , their likely impact on a jury . . .), I have concluded that the case is not one in which criminal proceedings would be appropriate in the public interest. He is saying that these offences are political offences. We then come to the conclusions of Mr Justice Hope. We need to remember that Mr Justice Hope has acknowledged that his own case and his own consideration of a breach of the Crimes Act was inhibited. In paragraph 7.31 on page 193 of the report-because of the nature of this forum it is hard to cover the matters in detail-Mr Justice Hope says that he agrees with the submission by the Attorney-General that in respect of the honourable member for Port Adelaide's possible breach of the Crimes Act the Attorney-General's consent must be obtained for any prosecution under section 79 of that Act. The Royal Commissioner must take account of the Attorney-General's opinion. He states: During the course of the hearings . . . both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General gave opinions to the Government on whether the evidence established that Mr Young had committed any offence under the section. The effect of the opinions was that Mr Young's liability would depend on what facts were established . . . since Mr Young is not required to defend himself in criminal proceedings against a charge that he committed an offence under the section, I should not express any view as to whether or not he has committed such an offence. I agree with this submission. I put that to this chamber. The Royal Commissioner is saying that he has not specifically considered whether a criminal change should lie. The Attorney- General has said that one might lie and on one interpretation of the facts it should. Let us look at the circumstances which the Royal Commissioner has set down on pages 194 and 195, to which my colleague the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has already referred and which establish point by point -there are four of them-that each of the offences committed by the honourable member for Port Adelaide was in transgression of section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act. It is that man who we are told today will be exonerated, yet the Royal Commissioner has found him guilty of improperly and without authorisation leaking information of the highest and most confidential committee of the Cabinet. This committee's advice goes right to the core of the business of government. The Royal Commissioner has said point by point that this man has breached the Crimes Act. The man has breached the Crimes Act and the Attorney- General has said that the political penalty, not the criminal law, should be applied. Let us turn to the statement of the Prime Minister. What does he say? He says: 'Poor old Mick; he has been a member of the Labor Party for 30 years. Poor old Mick; he has been a mate'. Gosh, if I had mates like that I would hate to have enemies. That is what this debate is all about. Do honourable members remember what happened? The Prime Minister said in this House that poor old Mick was a man of propriety. Why did he say that? Did he do so because he had asked the then Special Minister of State into his study and said: 'Mick, what is this business all about? Tell me, whom did you advise about the proceedings of our National Security and Intelligence Committee?' Mr Howard —It just slipped out in a shearing shed. Mr SINCLAIR —It just slipped out, as my honourable friend said. Mr Howard —Slipped out in the shearing shed. Mr SINCLAIR —Yes, that is probably where it happened. There would have been a bit more blood on the floor. The point is that the Prime Minister did not question the then Special Minister of State sufficiently or, if he did, the then Special Minister of State misled the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in this House that the then Special Minister of State was a man of propriety. Either the Prime Minister did not sufficiently diligently pursue his inquiries about this affair with Mr Young or, the Prime Minister having adequately pursued those inquiries, Mr Young deliberately misled him. In either event, Mr Young certainly did not inform the Prime Minister of these transgressions before the Prime Minister told the House that the honourable member was a man of propriety and that none of these things had happened. Not only has there been a breach of the Crimes Act but also, as one sees if one looks closely at the Royal Commissioner's report and the Attorney-General's letter, there has certainly been a misleading of the Parliament. That is what we are being asked this afternoon to condone. We are being told by the Prime Minister that Mr Young now has the green light; that the Prime Minister will support his return to the Ministry. The Prime Minister said: 'Poor old Mick has suffered. I think no-one in this place has been closer to him over the years than I have'. Of course, he said the same thing about Mr Combe. We in Australia need to remember that this Royal Commission has inquired into the affairs of the senior office bearers of the Australian Labor Party. We have in the Prime Minister the former President of the Australian Labor Party. I do not want to go down the track of the present President of the Australian Labor Party, but we all know what a crook he is and what is happening in New South Wales which is an absolute condemnation of the system of democratic govenment in Australia. The Prime Minister is a former President of the Labor Party and Mr Mick Young is a former Secretary of the Federal Labor Party. Mr David Combe took over from Mr Young. They were all good mates. I am concerned that people should realise that in the circumstances of the condemnation by the Royal Commissioner, the Prime Minister has said, all for the sake of mateship: 'I will damn David Combe', and justifiably, according to the Royal Commissioner, 'but I will exonerate Mick Young'. Yet the Attorney-General has said that the penalty for Mick Young's transgression is political. We need to count the measure of that political penalty. The measure of that political penalty is a few months out in the cold, a few months during which poor old Mick suffered. Dear me, didn't he suffer! When one reads this statement one almost cries and has to bring out a handkerchief. I think it is important that we realise that the Prime Minister has said: 'It is clear that these sins, these transgressions, were based on an error of personal judgment from which he has now learnt and which I am sure will not be repeated.' What were those sins? The honourable member for Port Adelaide has leaked a national security matter to a crony, misled his Prime Minister and the Parliament and he has now been out of the Ministry for a few months. There is absolutely no basis upon which this Government can hold its head high if, in going to the people on the readmission of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, it says that all this is washed under the table. This is not washed under the table and the Government stands condemned by the Royal Commissioner. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.57) —The issue before the House is the report and findings of the Royal Commission on Australia 's Security and Intelligence Agencies headed by Mr Justice Hope. I can understand why members of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in their presentation of their case in respect of this report have concentrated largely on one aspect of the report; that is, the very candid and forthright statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he believes that the honourable member for Port Adelaide, Mick Young ought to be back in the Ministry . I can understand why the Opposition would choose to follow that tack because this is an occasion on which the Opposition could have chosen to prove the many very serious allegations that it has made ever since this matter first arose concerning both the Prime Minister's and the Government's handling of it. Let me remind honourable gentlemen opposite that when matters of national security and civil liberties were raised at various stages by the Opposition-they are serious matters and have to be treated seriously by this House-the Government followed a course of action which was designed not to disclose Mr Combe's name. Allegations were subsequently made in this House by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) that the Government's decision was improper and that the Government by its handling of the matter had destroyed Mr Combe's civil liberties. What does Mr Justice Hope find on that matter? At page 43 of the report Mr Justice Hope, in referring to the decision that Mr Combe should be placed under surveillance, says: I am prepared to accept that it was the desire- that is, of the Committee- not to damage unnecessarily either Mr Combe's reputation or his business which motivated the Committee to ask the Prime Minister not to comment upon the relationship when implementing that part of the decision. I can find no fault with that request. He continues on page 45 to say: The Government was, at all times, sensitive to the implications for national security of some of the decisions it had made and which were embodied- He refers to decision 321 of the National and International Security Committee- It also realised the need to prevent, as far as possible, damage to Mr Combe through the public linking of his name with Mr Ivanov. Accordingly, care was taken in drafting the decision to avoid the use of Mr Combe's name. Further, the minute received very restricted circulation. It did indeed. Such matters are not just the responsibility of the government of the day. There is also a very heavy duty on the Opposition in the Parliament as to the manner in which it handles these very sensitive matters. It was for that reason and as part of the tradition and practice of this Parliament that the Leader of the Opposition was fully briefed, as he ought to have been. It was for that reason that the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) was fully briefed, as he ought to have been. What is the purpose of that convention? Is it just some idle exercise in passing across information? Of course it is not . Everybody knows that the Leader of the Opposition has the same status in this House as a Minister of the Crown. When it comes to addressing the Parliament on the serious and vital issues of national security he is entitled to know and be informed if for no other reason than to conduct the affairs of the Opposition so that it can present its arguments and discharge its duties with some sense of honour and propriety and, at the same time, say nothing, either intentionally or loosely, which could damage the institution of the Parliament or its handling of the problems that it has to face when dealing with these issues. According to the finding of Mr Justice Hope, the Government had set out on a course designed to see that Mr Ivanov was dealt with but, at the same time, Mr Combe's reputation was protected as far as possible. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been around the Parliament long enough to know how questions are asked in the Parliament. Opposition members come in with questions prepared for them. Yet we are asked to believe that the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) happened to listen to a radio program and, by some curious coincidence, wandered in, without bothering to consult the Leader of the Opposition, and casually threw in Mr Combe's name. I do not believe it. I venture to suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that as an experienced parliamentarian you do not believe it and the Opposition does not believe it. Having thrown in his name the next exercise for the Leader of the Opposition was to cry civil liberties. I found that fascinating. In all the years I have known the Leader of the Opposition all of a sudden he was concerned about civil liberties. The Opposition went further. Let me refer to some of the statements and terminology used by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech in the Parliament on 25 May 1983. Opposition members are the people who lecture us on propriety. The Leader of the Opposition was briefed as if he were a member of the Ministry. I had not been briefed. I had not been privy to the information, nor had the great majority of my colleagues. But the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke in this House, spoke as a man who had had all the information before him. He alleged that Mr Combe was denied civil liberties. That was not mentioned today. He did not want to pursue that matter. He then made specific allegations. Let me use the terminology that is to be found in Hansard. The Leader of the Opposition , a man who knew, directed the allegations of dishonesty specifically to the Prime Minister and the Government. He also used the words 'duplicity' and ' deceit'. Dishonesty, duplicity and deceit are strong words. He made unspecified allegations about general misconduct. This powder puff Leader of the Opposition, this escapee from a beauty parlour, had the opportunity today to drive home those allegations on the basis of the findings of this report. Why did he not do so? If the Prime Minister had not used his usual candour and honesty in respect of the future of Mr Young, the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the Opposition would have had nothing to say and neither should it. On every specific issue and allegation the Commissioner has found for the Government. That is the reality. Mr Spender —On Young? Mr HOLDING —I will deal with Mr Young. The honourable member should not fear about that. Mr Spender —Nobody else has. Mr HOLDING —I am very happy to deal with Mr Young. The Opposition was running around Australia talking about deceit, dishonesty and duplicity when the Leader of the Opposition had been fully briefed. People were entitled to say: 'He must know when he says these things'. There was not one tittle of evidence to support what he said. The allegations made against the Prime Minister were repeated in the House today by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). Everybody knows that he will say anything but what was the specific findings of His Honour? He said: It is therefore open to find, and I do find, that the Prime Minister had implied authority to communicate with Mr Butler and Mr Farmer. The communications were, in fact, justified by the need to ensure that, as far as practicable, the purposes of the NISC decision were achieved. Moreover, what the Prime Minister had done was in effect, confirmed by both the Cabinet and the Ministry, for he told each of these bodies about his communications on 26 April and 2 May respectively. Despite that finding, the Deputy Leader of the National Party talks about cronies. What sort of evidence does he need? If there is any dishonour in this House on the handling of this allegation it is by the lazy, slovenly and incompetent Opposition. That is where the dishonour lies. Let us deal with Mr Young, whose conduct has been a major part of the allegations. I do not have any difficulty in dealing with any of these matters. I think the House would be assisted in looking at what was said. As was pointed out by my colleague, Mr Young is not now a member of the Ministry. When the matter was disclosed he resigned. The Prime Minister took the view, supported by the Cabinet, that his position would not be filled until after the decisions of the Royal Commission were available and could be debated by the Parliament. Mr Young himself has admitted the impropriety and its cause and it has been dealt with. The honourable gentlemen opposite cannot prove any of their allegations about dishonesty or deceit. These men can no longer pursue their arguments about civil liberties because they know that on every major aspect of their allegations about the Prime Minister and the Cabinet there has been a specific finding which destroys the basis of their allegations. They are left with Mick Young. Let us look at the statements that were made. His Honour finds: I am also of the view that the potential, rather than the actual, damage to the national security is what must be considered in determining impropriety. That is fair enough. He goes on to say, and this is the heart of the matter, the basis upon which we must make our judgment and it is a political judgment we are making, not a legal judgment: In the present case there is no evidence- I stress 'there is no evidence'- that national security was damaged by what Mr Young said to Mr Walsh. Mr Howard —So if the bullet misses it is okay. Mr HOLDING —I am dealing with a finding that was made. The honourable member for Bennelong might not like the finding, he might not want to agree with it, but that is the finding that was made. Let me remind honourable members opposite again of what Mr Justice Hope says: . . . there is no evidence that national security was damaged by what Mr Young said to Mr Walsh. He goes on to say: It is also relevant that Mr Young had been a Minister for a period of less that six weeks and that this was his first experience of such a case. I have concluded that, notwithstanding his short Ministerial experience, it should have been apparent to Mr Young that he should not make the disclosures. Mr Young agrees with that. The Prime Minister agrees with that. The question is whether, in the face of those findings, we say that Mr Young has paid an appropriate penalty. Because there is a finding that says that there has been no damage at all to national security, that there was an impropriety, in my political judgement that matter has been paid for well and truly by Mr Young's resignation and the subsequent problems that gave him. I do not have any difficulty at all with that. I stand by that as an exercise in political judgement and I will defend it. Let me finish on this note: The tragic aspect of this debate is that, in the face of the very high responsibility that was placed upon the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed upon the Opposition as a whole, to deal with this matter with great sensitivity and with what I believe to be due regard to the interests of the nation, those interests were submerged by a desire to buy cheap political points and it did not matter who was damaged in the process. That is the record. On every major issue Mr Justice Hope finds that the Government acted properly and with propriety. In so finding he has, without saying it, condemned the shallowness, the meanness and the hypocrisy of the approach which unfortunately has been taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition in this Parliament. I believe that if there is any shame in this matter it rests upon an incompetent and slovenly opposition. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.12) —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding ) concluded by referring to the record. Let us refer to the record and place one thing very clearly on the record: There never would have been an inquiry into the Ivanov affair if this Opposition had not pressed for it. Let us remind members of this House that it was on the same day that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced that inquiry that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) came into this House to defend the Government against just such a request, that there should be a judicial inquiry. That having been put to one side, let us also put this matter on the record: Nowhere in the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence is there to be found a criticism of the Opposition or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). We have had the loan sharks defence from the Treasurer (Mr Keating), devoid of truth and of principle. Neither he nor the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) could find any reference to the Opposition. So much for the boasts of the Prime Minister and others that we would come into this House when the Hope report came down and we would be sorry for ourselves because of the Hope report. Let us come to the Prime Minister's attempt today-an attempt by which he has disgraced and prostituted his office and the institution of Parliament-to defend the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). What has that defence been? It has been no more than a pusillanimous capitulation to the politics of Tammany Hall. What are those politics predicated on? They are predicated on having the numbers, and that is just what Mr Young has. So, after 30 years of active service in the Australian Labor Party, he has to be rewarded and his peccadillos put to one side. He is to be embraced within the fold and welcomed back into the Government. No one on the Government side has sought to deal with the charge which is inherent against Mr Young; that is, deliberately he deceived this House, he deceived the Prime Minister, and he deceived the Australian people. A bare narrative of events is sufficient to establish that charge. What did Mr Young tell the world? He made a statement-it was the first statement he made until he was caught-on 13 May. This was his statement in relation to what appeared in the National Times and what had happened in the House. He said about his comment to Mr Cameron that he was going to kick out a Russian: I accept that my comment to Mr Cameron was unwise. I have today spoken to the Prime Minister and he has registered his concern. I understand and accept his concern. That was all. Yet on the very day before that conversation with Mr Cameron he had had a far more serious conversation with a mate. What he had told his mate breached national security and, in the words of Mr Justice Hope, constituted 'a real risk that significant damage could have resulted from the disclosures'. Did he have a lapse of memory? Why was it that when he went to the Prime Minister and when he made that statement on 13 May he did not also say: 'Mr Prime Minister, there is a far more important matter that I think you should know about. I have told a friend of mine about the events that took place in the National and International Security Committee'? Did he say that? Apparently he did not. We accept the Prime Minister, who came into this House and defended Mr Young, as a man of honesty and a man of integrity. How did Mr Young have this lapse of memory? Was it by chance, was it sheer intellectual deficiency, or did he think that he could get away with the game? The truth of the matter is that he thought he could get away with it. By his silence he lied to the Prime Minister, to his parliamentary colleagues, to this House and to the Australian people. He intended the world at large to believe that his only error was in telling Mr Cameron on 22 April that the Government had decided to kick out a Russian. There was nothing casual about his conduct. His conduct was persisted in. He sat here while the Prime Minister defended him. He sat here as the affair dragged on. But then he was caught. He was caught because the Commission had been constituted and circumstances came to the attention of counsel for the Commission and counsel for the Commission saw the Prime Minister. This is what Mr McHugh said: The circumstances in which Mr Young came to make his statement to the Prime Minister were these: last Wednesday evening counsel for the Commonwealth had a conference with the Prime Minister. We informed him that we had obtained information which made it appear that there would be an issue before the Royal Commission as to whether, on the night of 20 or 21 April a minister had given information to a third party concerning the briefing which the National and International Security Committee had received from the director-general of security. Mr McHugh said that in reference to a conversation with the Prime Minister on 13 July. What happened? The following day, after he had gone to see the Prime Minister, his junior, with his instructing solicitor, interviewed Mr Young. I quote from the transcript of what Mr McHugh said to the Commissioner: During the conference, however, the opportunity was taken to question Mr Young concerning Mr Matheson's allegations. When the conference concluded Mr Young went to see the Prime Minister and made the statement to which I have referred and at the same time offered his resignation. There we have honest Mick? What happened? He was caught out. He knew the game was up. He knew that he faced public disclosure. So he went to see the Prime Minister while the going was good, hoping that by doing that he would be able to climb back later on into the Ministry. What have we heard from him today? Have we heard any attempt to meet the criticisms that are made of him? Have we heard any explanation of how it could be that he never told the Prime Minister until 14 July that he had told a friend about what happened in the National and International Security Committee? No, we have not heard from him about those matters and we have not heard a satisfactory explanation or an attempt at an explanation by anyone from the other side. Why? It is because there is no explanation that can be offered. All we get from the Prime Minister is this: Mr Young has suffered; he has been out of a job for a few months and he has been striving for a job for a long time and, for God's sake, surely it is bad that a man should be kept out of work under those circumstances. That is a perfectly unprincipled approach, an approach which debases the parliamentary institution, as honest members on the Government side must well understand. For those who say, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs says, that there is no evidence that any harm was caused to national security, let me remind them of two things. First of all, Mr Justice Hope pointed out that there was a real risk that significant damage could have resulted from the disclosures; it was purely fortuitous that no damage did result. Mr Young did not give a damn; it just turned out that no damage resulted. For those who say that no damage resulted, it is rather like the defence to an attempted murder: 'Sure, I made the attempt, but I missed. So, surely, Your Honour, I should be allowed out'. I come now to another matter which has not received any consideration from the other side-the question of charges under the Crimes Act. This matter has been considered by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), by the Solicitor- General and by Mr Justice Hope. Mr Justice Hope has taken the view that he would not express an opinion as to whether or not there had been a breach of the Crimes Act. I entirely agree with that approach. But in his examination of the elements that constitute a breach of sub-sections 79 (1) and (3) of the Crimes Act, which appear at page 194 of his report, it is made quite clear that he believes that the essential elements were made out; that there was a communication made by Mr Young and that this was information of a proscribed kind which could not be communicated except to an authorised person and that that communication was made to an unauthorised person. There is another matter of vital significance when we come to the question of the present status of Mr Young. Honourable members will recall that when the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General gave their written opinions about the Crimes Act a question existed as to whose account should be preferred-Mr Young's or Mr Walsh's. Mr Justice Hope has accepted Mr Walsh's statement of the events. That brings me to what the Attorney-General had to say upon this subject. I quote from his opinion. He said: If, on the other hand, Mr Walsh's account were to prevail, the question of the application of s. 79 (3) would be, in my view, much more finely balanced. As a matter of law, it is possible that an offence may have been committed. 'Possible', he said. He went on to express the reasons for that. The Solicitor- General, however, one of the most eminent lawyers in this country, had no doubt at all about the matter, certainly no such doubts as the Attorney-General expressed. What did he say about Mr Walsh's evidence? He said: I think, therefore, that should Mr Walsh's evidence be accepted it would be open to a jury to find that Mr Young had committed a breach of section 79 (3). So there we have an entirely different scenario for the Attorney-General and the Government to look at. The exculpatory remarks made by the Attorney-General as to the reasons why Mr Young should not be prosecuted can now no longer apply. Whether he should be is a matter for the Government and must under the law be a matter for the Attorney-General. I remind the House of the four considerations that exercised the Attorney- General's mind in that long and rambling opinion that he gave on the subject. The first was obscurity of the law. As to that, it is perfectly plain that the Solicitor-General felt no difficulties and any obscurities have been expounded by Mr Justice Hope, so we can put those to one side. The second was seriousness of the offence and the degree of culpability. We have heard the views of Mr Justice Hope which make it perfectly plain that there is no difference between an attempted murder and a murder when national security matters are being dealt with. Thirdly, the Attorney-General was moved by the need for deterence. He said this: The sanction of resignation has already, of course, applied in the present case . We know that that sanction is no longer to apply. We know that Mr Young will be welcomed back by the Caucus in February and that he will be promoted by the Prime Minister into the Ministry. Who doubts that he will go back into the Ministry? The fourth matter that exercised the Attorney-General's mind was the automatic disqualification from Parliament that might follow from a conviction. That is, of course, utterly irrelevant. If there is a breach of the Crimes Act then members of parliament are in no special position to claim exemption from prosecution because their position may be affected. God knows, if anyone is charged with an offence under the Crimes Act and is convicted that person will be affected in a number of ways and no special considerations need to be given to members of parliament for that reason. Lastly, let me go back to Mr Young's answer. He gave it today in this House. He suggested that he had been exculpated; that is, it was an end to the matter and he could go forward, as it were, a good little boy who slipped once and had a rap over the knuckles. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the findings that Mr Justice Hope made. The Attorney-General and this Government are not in a position to say that the book is closed. The book has been opened by Mr Justice Hope. The evidence is now there. The findings are there. It is for the Attorney-General and this Government to determine what fate awaits Mr Young under the Crimes Act. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Mr UREN —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to add to a reply to a question asked during Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —I will grant the Minister the indulgence. Mr UREN —During Question Time the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) asked me about the risk of pollution of the Murrumbidgee River as a result of an unstable tailings dam at the Cowarra Mine on the Bredbo River in New South Wales . I indicate to the honourable member that the Department of Territories and Local Government has been concerned about the risk of pollution of the Murrumbidgee River as a result of the situation at the Cowarra Dam. Representatives of my Department met with New South Wales authorities on 8 June to discuss ways of solving the problem. On 29 June the Department wrote to the New South Wales State Pollution Control Commission expressing concern about the extent of the risk and indicating the need for urgent remedial works. On 7 September I wrote to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory informing the Committee that the New South Wales authorities had advised my Department that funds were being sought from the New South Wales Government for interim remedial works and that, subject to their availability, the work will be carried out in late 1983. This afternoon I sought details on the current situation. It is my understanding that funds for the remedial works have been provided in the New South Wales Budget but that these works have not yet been carried out. I am concerned about the potential threat to water quality in the Murrumbidgee River and will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Mineral Resources in New South Wales. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members I present Interim Report No. 1 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of Interim Report No. 1 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group, and (2) That the report be printed. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State) —by leave-On 28 March 1983 the terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking were extended to allow the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Stewart, to inquire into the activities of the Nugan Hand Group of companies and related matters. The Commissioner has now reported to the Government on three of the terms of reference contained in the Letters Patent issued by the Governor-General on that date, and this is the report I am now tabling. Honourable members will recall that serious allegations had been raised concerning members of this Parliament and relating to alleged interference in Commonwealth investigations and wrongful use of an ex-officio indictment. The Royal Commission has inquired into these allegations and found them to be without basis. The first term of reference on which the Commissioner has reported is: (e) Whether any person, organisation or body associated with the Nugan Hand Group directly or indirectly made or offered any payment or inducement for, or in connection with, or endeavoured by means of a threat to procure, the disclosure by any Commonwealth officer or any person who was formerly a Commonwealth officer of information relating to an investigation by an Australian law enforcement body into any activity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); That is, relating to possible illegal activities by the Nugan Hand Group. The Commissioner's response to this question is no. The second term of reference on which the Commissioner has reported is: (f) Whether any person, organisation or body associated with the Nugan Hand Group procured or received, directly or indirectly, from any Commonwealth officer or any person who was formerly a Commonwealth officer information relating to an investigation by an Australian law enforcement body into any activity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); The Commissioner's response to this question is: 'Yes, Mr F. J. Nugan received confidential information relating to the investigation indirectly from a Commonwealth officer, namely Philip Ambrose Bailey as a result of an approach by Mr Garry Allen in Hong Kong in about November 1977 to an employee of Mr F. J. Nugan to whom the confidential information was passed and who in turn conveyed that information to Mr F. J. Nugan.' Mr Bailey was an investigator in the Sydney office of the Federal Narcotics Bureau from 1973 until the Bureau was abolished in 1979. I am advised that he ceased to be an employee of the Commonwealth early in 1981. The third term of reference on which the Commissioner has reported is: (g) whether any person, organisation or body improperly interfered with, inhibited or endeavoured to interfere with or inhibit any investigation by an Australian law enforcement body into any activity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). The Commissioner's response to this question is no. The report does not contain recommendations for further action on any of these matters. The Commission found that the substance of the allegations against members of this House all came from the one person concerning whose credibility 'the Commission entertains serious doubts'. It is the Commission's opinion that there is no credible evidence to support these allegations and the Commission is of the view that the allegations are 'quite unjustified and false'. As to allegations of intimidation by the then Attorney-General, the Commission found that '. . . there is no substance in (the) assertion that the . . . Attorney- General . . . acted maliciously in filing an ex-officio indictment in respect of Mr Volkman in 1982'. The matters that were referred to the Royal Commission were of public concern. Following the Commission's investigation of those matters and its report, that concern can now be put to rest. In accordance with the Commissioner's recommendation, one page of the report containing information on the identity of two confidential witnesses has been deleted from the report as tabled. In addition, following consultation with the Commissioner and with his agreement, Appendix K and certain other matters-mostly the names of individuals and companies-have been deleted from the appendices in the report as tabled. None of the matters deleted relate, in themselves, to the matters under consideration in the report. Finally I inform honourable members that a copy of the Commissioner's report has been sent to the Premier of New South Wales for his information. The Government presently has under consideration, in consultation with the Government of New South Wales, the question of an extension of time beyond 31 December 1983 for Mr Justice Stewart to complete his inquiries into the remaining terms of reference. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —by leave-I do not propose to detain the House for very long. I am one of the members of this House against whom these allegations have been made. So far as they relate to me, the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group are as I expected. The allegations concerning me are false and have previously been denied by me in this House. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) has also strongly denied the allegations made against him. The Royal Commissioner, His Honour Mr Justice Stewart, has found that the allegations concerning both of us came from the one person concerning whose credibility 'the Commission entertains serious doubts'. In his findings, on page 116, reference 5.36, His Honour said: In the result, the Commission is satisfied that there is no credible evidence to support these allegations as summarised at 3.2 (f) and is of the opinion that such allegations are quite unjustified and false. This finding, of course, exonerates each of the persons named in these allegations from the alleged wrongdoing. Mr Speaker, I am pleased that the Royal Commission has had an opportunity to examine these unfounded allegations and that I had an opportunity to appear before His Honour. I of course welcome the findings. I am disappointed, however, that two members of this House who are now Ministers, one the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the other the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), were prepared to use the forms of this House to highlight such unfounded and scurrilous allegations. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —by leave-This is the second debate we have had today on reports of royal commissions. I think that what could be said about the Government's response, and from looking further into this report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group, is that the then Opposition 's and the now Government's actions in the matter reveal one common thread and that is double standards. We had the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today, in defending the ex-Special Minister of State, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), referring to the very highest standards that he would expect from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. He followed that up very quickly, three or four pages later in his statement, by throwing high standards out of the window and promoting the discredited ex-Special Minister of State back into his Ministry. If that is not double standard I do not know what is. Mr Hand —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point is that this has nothing to do with the topic before the House. Mr SPEAKER —I have been aware of the point raised by the honourable member for Melbourne. I was about to invite the honourable member for Bass to refer to the paper before the House. Mr NEWMAN —I will come to the point of why I referred back to the statement made earlier in the House. The second point about double standards was again in the Prime Minister's defence of the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia 's Security and Intelligence Agencies. He demanded an apology from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Mr Hand —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is raising a point of order on the same matter that he raised before. I accept that the honourable member for Bass is briefly coming to the point and drawing a parallel with this report. I hope that I am correct in my assessment of the honourable member for Bass. Mr NEWMAN —I come to that point right now. As I was saying, the Prime Minister in his statement demanded an apology from the Leader of the Opposition for daring to query the Government's actions in this Combe affair. Now-this is the point-if one compares what was said in this House legitimately by the Opposition in raising quite considerable and valid criticism of the way in which the Government conducted the Combe affair with the way in which the then Leader of the Opposition conducted himself in the series of debates that began on 11 March 1982 and went over several other debating days, one can see that it is just sheer hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to make statements such as that. It is sheer hypocrisy because he sat in this House behind the then Leader of the Opposition-I have no doubt that he was in the counsel of the then Leader of the Opposition outside this chamber-and supported and promoted the sort of nonsense which the then Leader of the Opposition brought into this House. That is the point I make to the honourable member. Mr Cunningham —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The speaker is not relating his remarks to the report before the House. He is dealing with- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Chair will be the judge of that. The honourable member for Bass is clearly referring to the report just presented by the Minister. Mr NEWMAN —For the benefit of the honourable member who just raised the point of order, let me relate my remarks quite precisely to why that report is absolutely valid to what I have just said. The Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), in a very bland statement appearing in the middle of his remarks, said: The Commission found that the substance of the allegations against members of this House all came from the one person concerning whose credibility 'the Commission entertains serious doubts'. In fact, in a very nice way the Commissioner called Mr B, who is the source of these original allegations, a liar. That is really what he was saying. The statement continues: It is the Commission's opinion that there is no credible evidence to support these allegations and the Commission is of the view that the allegations are ' quite unjustified and false'. That was one quote the Minister brought to us out of Commissioner Stewart's report. The Minister failed to say also what the Commissioner said on page 13, paragraph 2.8, of the report. The report states: However, it was when the Honourable W. G. Hayden, M.P., then Leader of the Opposition, repeated some of these allegations in the House of Representatives on 11, 16 and 18 March 1982, respectively, that they gained more widespread publicity. I repeat that the finding of the Commissioner was that the allegations about what Mr B actually promoted-the Commissioner has found it to be quite false; he found that Mr B was a liar-only gained any credibility or widespread publicity when the then Leader of the Opposition started to bring them into the House. What effect his allegations had. Here is the sheath of the reports that appeared in the media-in every one of the daily newspapers, in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television programs and all the rest of them. What were they reporting? They were reporting the allegations made by the then Leader of the Opposition that two Ministers-the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife)-had stopped the investigation into Nugan Hand, had taken a direct action which prevented the course of justice and which stopped the proper investigation. That is why this Royal Commission had to report-because of infamous conduct by the then Leader of the Opposition and now Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who is now listening to this debate. I hope he responds. I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs will recall some of the things that happened in that period from 11 March onwards. From the very first moment when he brought these allegations into this House-on the very same day-a very clear, precise denial was made by the Leader of the National Party in the first case. It was quite clear then and later in a statement that I made that there was simply no credibility in the sorts of things that the then Leader of the Opposition and now Minister for Foreign Affairs was trying to promote. But the Minister ignored that completely. It was clear why he ignored it. There were probably two reasons we could say why he ignored it. There were probably two reasons we could say why he indulged in this rather nasty, rotten conduct. The Minister for Foreign Affairs can make faces now, but we hear that sanctimonious Prime Minister, every time somebody dares to question any of his answers or any of the actions of his Government, class us all as either fools or charletans. But the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other people such as the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) who is sitting behind the Minister for Foreign Affairs, continually, day after day in debates in this House, attacked without any evidence whatsoever the reputations of various Ministers of the previous Government. Why did the then Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, do this? He made these allegations on the very flimsiest of evidence. It now transpires that he never checked the allegation that had been made by Mr Volkman or where Mr Volkman may have got it from. In fact, I think we would all recall very clearly that at one stage the then Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, was even saying that there were sworn statements bearing out what he had to say. Of course, that was found to be totally untrue as well. The then Leader of the Opposition brought these allegations, without making, as we now know, any check whatsoever on their credibility, firstly, to try to smear the then Deputy Prime Minister and the honourable member for Farrer. That was the basic reason for doing it. Of course, that there was an imminent by-election in Lowe shortly afterwards was the other reason why he indulged in these fantasies. The point about all this is that if we are to have a practice in this House which allows members to abuse the privileges we are given in this place and to seize upon any tittle-tattle to try to make national importance out of them so that reputations are smeared, it does not do this Parliament any good. Mr Humphreys —You want to remember that. Mr NEWMAN —I hope the honourable member does and I hope all honourable members do in the future. As I was saying, it does not do this Parliament any good. It certainly results in a lot of mud sticking on very innocent people who do not deserve it. Finally, it reflects on the people who indulge in it. In this case I think it reflects very badly on the then Leader of the Opposition and now Minister for Foreign Affairs. At that time in answers to questions, in statements and in debates that occurred over this issue it was made very clear to the Minister for Foreign Affairs exactly what course of action he had open to him. He had several options. They were enumerated at that time. They are worth while looking at again. Firstly, he could have taken the matter to the Australian Federal Police. On the day in question an Australian Federal Police senior officer was waiting in my office to take any documents or any statements the then Leader of the Opposition might have been able to give. The then Leader of the Opposition did not. He could have taken the matter to the joint task force which was investigating this matter. He did not. He could have taken it to the Stewart Royal Commission, as it then stood. He chose not to. There are a number of things he could have done, but which he did not do. Again, the reason for that was that he was not intent on finding out the truth. He was not intent on trying to find the real justice of the matter. All he was intent on doing was to smear some innocent people and to win the Lowe by-election. That is all I have to say. The point is well and truly made. The Prime Minister in his statement previously on the Hope Royal Commission, in referring to the queries which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) had raised, demanded an apology. I hope that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will now apologise to the two Ministers he unfairly smeared in this issue. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-I am extremely pleased by the findings of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group, at least insofar as they relate to the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony). He is the only person I ever referred to in relation to the matters before Mr Justice Stewart and now before this Parliament . I am pleased very simply that the denials of the then Deputy Prime Minister, now Leader of the National Party, have been endorsed by the Stewart Royal Commission. In turn, that means simply that my acceptance of those denials has been upheld. That I am very pleased about. My comments will be charitably rather short. They are merely to remind people of the record in the Parliament as distinct from the imagination of the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). I am a member of parliament and the forum in which I operate is the Parliament, not royal commissions and not courts . They may be incidental areas in which one finds oneself sometimes, with greater or lesser comfort, in my case never with any discomfort. But I am a parliamentarian and as a parliamentarian the venue in which I operate is this chamber. Honourable members who have a reliable memory will remember that in the early part of March 1982 rumours were rife about Parliament House that a senior Minister or Ministers had been involved in interference with the proper procedures of investigations and processes related to some vaguely alluded to narcotics matters. They were not comments generated by the then Opposition, now the Government. They were quite declaratory statements which appeared on television and were heard on radio. In all the circumstances, given the seriousness of the allegations, it would have been most extraordinary had an opposition not raised questions in the Parliament. One must cast one's mind back to that period and recall the rather strange way in which the then Government conducted the affairs of this Parliament. The Parliament is a debating chamber. It is supposed to be a venue where members express points of view, test them, test opposing points of view, test the veracity of comments that come up from time to time, and question the viability or appropriateness of policies-a whole range of these sorts of things. However, in that period we had a government controlled by a Prime Minister who believed that the less that was said in Parliament the better. I suspect that, making a fairly accurate assessment of his own limitations, that was a sensible approach. It was, however, a self-destructive approach for him in terms of his position in this Parliament. There were many instances when matters raised by the then Opposition could have been snuffed as quickly as a click of finger and thumb had a debate been taken on by the horns in the way in which I believe it should be if serious questions affecting government are raised in the Parliament. I repeat : Instead of doing that we found, with the brilliant wisdom that people such as the honourable member for Bass were able to bring to bear on behalf of the then Government-which parenthetically I observe explains why we are here now and honourable members opposite are there now, that is, they listened too much to the wit and wisdom of people such as the honourable member for Bass-that these sorts of things, instead of being concluded promptly, often went on for days on end. I suppose that in a sense that was a splendid opportunity for an opposition to monopolise the limelight. For the Government it was not a very productive situation and a not very helpful situation for the Parliament. Only one group can accept responsibility or culpability for that-the government of the day. I come back to March 1982, when the debate on this matter arose. On 11 March 1982, as reported at page 892 of the parliamentary record, I sought leave to move a motion revolving about certain allegations very seriously and disturbingly made, then very recently, about drug matters, ministerial interference, and so on. I then sought to explain that it was being very widely canvassed in the corridors of Parliament that the Deputy Prime Minister's name had been raised in relation to these matters. It had been raised by the media. It had not been raised by the Opposition. We knew nothing about it until it appeared in the media. We knew nothing about the identity of the alleged Minister until I heard from media people, who quite genuinely presented this matter. I said: The Minister concerned has been privately identified as the Deputy Prime Minister . . . but in these circumstances-- With all the brilliance that the then Government was able to bring to bear-it really was brilliance for a government in such a commanding position to be able to tear out block after block of its majority in government and put us here and it there-it snuffed out the debate. I was going to say: 'In these circumstances I do not accept those allegations'. I remember it clearly, but I was prevented from saying any more. Then a few minutes later, the record shows, when responding to Mr Speaker as to whether I had put the motion in writing, I said: Yes, Mr Speaker. The allegations have been made publicly today. We neither endorse them nor- I was going to say 'accept them', and that in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister I found them incredible. I never got a chance. My contribution to the debate was snuffed out. The problem was generated by the lame-mindedness of certain strategists then with the Government. As I recall, the honourable member for Bass was a leading strategist. He was able to bring to bear all the experience and development that he had been able to establish in his Army career . I recall that when he was in Vietnam he was lost for three weeks when he took a troop out on patrol. He was supposed to be out for only three days. They had to send three troops of soldiers to find him. My brother-in-law was one of them and he said it was a matter of melancholy regret that they discovered him. Mr Newman —I called him a liar when he said that before and I call him a liar again. Mr HAYDEN —I can nearly wind up now because I do not like to see the honourable member for Bass in an apoplectic condition. On 11 March 1982, as reported as page 97 of the record of parliamentary debates, I said: The Deputy Prime Minister did stand up this afternoon and deny the allegations. I accept his denial. That was my first available opportunity to string more than three words together and, given the opportunity, I killed off the problems the Government had generated by its sheer unexampled stupidity. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said: But you accepted a denial. Do you accept it or not? He said that with that sort of chewing gum accent that comes from the north shore of Sydney. I said: 'What?' Well, I have a hearing problem and sometimes, I must confess, it is convenient. The honourable member said: 'His denial'. I said : Yes. I said that I accepted it. All of this development in relation to the then Deputy Prime Minister, now Leader of the National Party, was generated by the ingenuity of the then Government and by no one else. On the first opportunity I had I accepted his denial. Had I not been interrupted I would have made the denial for him. I would have made it effectively, and the silly thing would not have got out of hand. For that, the then Government, now Opposition, has so much to thank the honourable member for Bass. We on this side of the House thank him for being here too. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.30) —For the information of the House I table the review of the program commissioning and purchasing policies of the Special Broadcasting Service and the response of the Special Broadcasting Service. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the Report to the Minister for Communications of the Review of the Program commissioning and purchasing policy of the Special Broadcasting Service and the response of the Special Broadcasting Service. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-The Special Broadcasting Service-SBS-is a statutory body established under the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, which commenced operations on 1 January 1978. Its charter at that time was to provide multilingual radio services through stations 2EA Sydney and 3EA Melbourne. In January 1980, acting on the recommendations of the Ethnic Television Review panel, the previous Government announced that a permanent multicultural television service-MTV-would be introduced by October of the same year. It proposed to expand the SBS into the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation-IMBC. In February 1980 the Government further announced that an IMBC Implementation Committee had been established to liaise between the SBS and the propsoed IMBC; the Committee was to oversight the activities of a task force especially created to establish the multicultural television service. The Fraser Government introduced legislation to establish the IMBC in May 1980, but the Senate referred the Bill to its Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, where it quickly expired. Although the Government then announced that the SBS would be restructured to enable it to handle MTV, at this point it simply ran out of steam and no further legislative action was taken. One can only have sympathy for the people from the SBS, Telecom Australia and my Department who, despite a totally unrealistic timetable and this legislative and administrative shambles, put multicultural television to air on time, in October 1980. It should be noted that it normally takes at least 18 months to put an English language television station to air. Faced with defective legislation, restricted resources and muddled directives from the Government, the SBS nevertheless managed to commence broadcasts in several languages in both Sydney and Melbourne right on target, just eight months after day one. However, it is clear that the pressures under which SBS has had to operate have taken their toll. There has not been any sustained or serious attempt to consult with ethnic communities, or the community generally, about the nature of the SBS , its programming philosophies, and its long term goals. As a result, there are very few people of ethnic background in senior management and the Board is not adequately representative of the ethnic communities. Despite the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars, the efforts of hundreds of volunteers, and the well -meant contributions of its staff, the SBS is an unhappy organisation. During the recent election campaign, the Australian Labor Party made all of these points in its policy statement, entitled 'Ethnic Radio and Multicultural Television'. We said there that ethnic broadcasting has been a valuable development in our society. Whether it be through multilingual radio, allowing the communities to talk among themselves, or multicultural television, allowing us all to understand and appreciate a little better the richness of the cultures our migrants have brought with them, ethnic broadcasting recognises that Australia is a multicultural society in which people of various backgrounds are accorded equal respect and consideration. Substantial groups with similar ethnic , cultural and linguistic backgrounds are entitled to media outlets which are sympathetic to their needs. They are also entitled to independence of government in those media outlets. There are no compelling reasons why the SBS should be more closely controlled in programming areas than the other national broadcaster , the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The purpose of any organisational arrangements should not be to make people of non-English speaking origin second class citizens, but to provide them with the same information and the same access to a diversity of ideas and opinions of people of Anglo-Saxon background. Such services are not privileges to be granted under conditions imposed by government, but the right of all Australians. Accordingly, we believe that change is inevitable. The Government is still committed to the expansion of multicultural television to all States and Territories and the timetable has already been approved. Although we would like to see a much greater involvement of public stations, we also support the continued expansion of multi-lingual radio. However, some adaptations are needed to existing structures to make ethnic broadcasting more responsive, more efficient and more independent of government. It is no secret that the SBS has been the subject of complaints. On 28 March 1983, shortly after the Government took office, the latest of these occurred when two film distributors wrote to me objecting to SBS program purchasing practices. I therefore asked Mr J. Oswin, a First Division officer in my Department, to review SBS program commissioning and purchasing policies and to report making recommendations concerning future arrangements. Mr Oswin found no evidence of corrupt practice within the SBS. However, he did identify acquisition practices which he regarded as: unethical, contrary to established industry practice and discriminatory if not by design then in their effect. He went on to say: notwithstanding the substantial level of business directed towards local distributors by SBS, the claims of the local distributors are still of substance . Those are short quotes from Mr Oswin's report referring to only one particular issue and it would be quite unfair to imply that they are typical of his findings. However, these conclusions, and some equally critical comment regarding the payment of withholding tax, are sufficient to make the Government feel that a full and frank public discussion of the past performance and future role of the SBS is now overdue. Accordingly, I have tabled both Mr Oswin's report and the response from the Board of the SBS. It will be clear from these documents that the Board does not accept many of Mr Oswin's findings. This is its right and it is entitled to put its case to the public and the Parliament. The Government has also decided to appoint a Committee of Review of the SBS. Briefly, our intention is that the review should examine and make recommendations upon the operational policies, administration, accountability and organisational arrangements of the SBS. We have also asked it to indicate whether other arrangements might be more appropriate and to comment upon the extent to which other broadcasters, such as public broadcasters or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, might be involved in the provision of multilingual radio and multicultural television services. I expect to name the members of the Committee of Review at an early date. However, it will be obvious to interested members that the men and women who are to serve on it will need to be people of high character and ability. The parallels with the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are clear; our hope and expectation is that this Committee also will make an historic contribution to Australian broadcasting and Australian society by providing us with the blueprint for the 1980's which the SBS to this point has been denied. The terms of reference of the review of the Special Broadcasting Service are as follows: 1. Having regard to: (a) The Government's desire to foster multiculturalism and the provision of multilingual radio and multicultural television services; (b) the statutory powers and functions of the Special Broadcasting Service- SBS -as set out in the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and the Broadcasting and Television (Special Broadcasting Service) Regulations; and (c) the services provided by other broadcasters; the review shall examine and make recommendations on the following matters: (i) The operational and programming policies, administration, accountability and organisational arrangements of the SBS; (ii) whether other arrangements including, for example, amalgamation with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, might be more appropriate for the provision of multilingual and multicultural services; (iii) how such services might best be developed in the future; (iv) the extent to which other broadcasters such as public broadcasters or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, might be involved in the provision of such services; (v) the principles which should govern greater community participation in the provision and development of such services; (vi) structures to ensure sensitivity to ethnic community needs and wishes and to promote adequate consultation with ethnic communities; (vii) means by which multilingual radio and multicultural television services might adequately provide for the information and educational needs of migrants, including English language learning; and (viii) consequential changes in legislative or administrative arrangements. 2. The final report of the review is to be forwarded to the Minister for Communications by 30 June 1984 and there may be interim reports on particular issues. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —by leave-The ministerial statement by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) tonight concerning the inquiry into the Special Broadcasting Service continues the policy of this Government of bad mouthing any initiative taken by the previous Government in relation to ethnic broadcasting. I cannot remember one good word by any member of the Australian Labor Party at any time on the Special Broadcasting Service. The Minister's statement tonight is full of innuendo against the Special Broadcasting Service. I believe this is all to build up an image that somehow or other the Special Broadcasting Service is an unsavoury and corrupt organisation even though Mr Oswin in his investigation of the practices of the Special Broadcasting Service-he made a fairly lengthy report on this matter-has been unable to sustain any such allegations of corruption. Mr Duffy —I said that. Mr LLOYD —I acknowledge that the Minister did say that. I believe it is the intention of the Labor Government to abolish the Special Broadcasting Service and any special and separate ethnic broadcasting organisation in this country. To achieve this aim there has been a softening up by the Government for such a decision. First of all, there was the investigation by Mr Oswin into these allegations of corruption. As the Minister has said in his statement, no such corruption was found but, nevertheless, we still have this inquiry. This public inquiry is just not to look at the charges that have been made and refuted, or certainly not substantiated, and not just at changes within the Special Broadcasting Service, but at the very future of the organisation. Already Labor has shown its intent by the earlier Government decision to disband the ethnic radio working party and with it any long term future for a separate and distinct ethnic radio in this country. There has not been time to read both the Oswin report and the reply of the Special Broadcasting Service to that report as they were tabled in this Parliament only this evening and presented to me this afternoon. But after reading certain sections of the two reports and also some reports in today's paper by a so-called government source giving advance information as to what the Minister would be doing today, and after listening to the Minister's statement here tonight and reading the terms of the inquiry into the Special Broadcasting Service, I believe the Opposition's criticism of the ultimate intent of the Government is justified. There is a comment in the Oswin report and the SBS response which is worthy of quotation tonight. It is worth quoting this comment, above any other, from this bulky document. It states: The SBS registers its protest that in the course of such a wide ranging review, neither Mr Oswin nor officers of the Review team deemed it necessary or desirable to formally interview Board members or the Executive Director of the SBS. Mr MacKellar —They didn't talk to anyone. Mr LLOYD —That is right. We have this great investigation and report and at no stage, according to the SBS response, was it interviewed to answer these allegations and these charges. Mr MacKellar —They didn't have the decency to talk to the Director? Mr LLOYD —I believe the honourable member is quite correct in the comments he has just made. In today's papers a number of articles, attributed to a government source, relate to the statement the Minister made tonight. I will quote from the Australian because it is representative of the articles that appeared today after this unattributable background briefing. The article states : The Federal Government will launch a public inquiry into allegations of corruption and misappropriation of funds at the Special Broadcasting Service, which operates, among others, Channel 0/28 in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra. The Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, is expected to outline the terms of the inquiry in Parliament today. 'There have been rumours around for some time that some people in the SBS were lining their own pockets, and inefficiency was rife within the service,' a government source said today. 'We just want to get to the bottom of these allegations and clear them up. 'The SBS has been the subject of pretty vicious attacks by sections of the ethnic press, some or all of which may well be false. An inquiry is the only way to really find out.' I return to the point that I made before; that the Minister said in his statement tonight, referring to the Oswin report, that no allegations of corruption have been sustained. Yet in this background briefing it was said that somehow or other this inquiry will be following up this process. This is part of a softening up process by the Government to find a reason to abolish a separate identity for ethnic broadcasting and telecasting in this country. When one looks at the terms of reference for the inquiry, it is not about these charges at all but about the future of the Special Broadcasting Service. These unproven charges of corruption are mentioned only as the reason why there should be an inquiry. I make the point, on behalf of the Opposition, that the Opposition warns the ethnic communities of Australia, as we attempted during the election campaign, that the Labor Government is committed to the termination of a separate and distinct broadcaster for the ethnic communities and for Australians generally. 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, with its traditional approach, restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the excessively 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 are vertebrogenic (spinal) in origin and therefore do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Andrew,Mr Beazley,Mr Blanchard,Dr Blewett,Mr Braithwaite,Mrs Darling,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Ms Fatin,Mr Fife,Mr Gorman,Mr Griffiths,Mr Groom,Mr Hand,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodgman,Mrs Kelly,Mr Keogh,Mr Lusher,Mr Millar,Mr Moore,Mr Porter,Mr Rocher,Mr Saunderson,Mr Sinclair,Dr Theophanous,Mr Tuckey and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programmes and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned programme of inprovements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Cohen,Mr Griffiths,Mr Groom,Mr Hand,Mr Howe,Mrs Kelly and Mr Steedman. 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 Beazley,Mr Gorman,Mr Groom,Mrs Kelly,Mr Kent and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, as members of a school parent club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of the bank debit tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of bank debit tax will be granted to school parents' clubs in government schools. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Dr Blewett,Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter and Mr Wilson. 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,Mr Hodgman and Mr Snow. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman,Mrs Kelly and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (a) that the Australian Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in Copenhagen in 1980; (b) that the Convention came into force on 3 September, 1981; (c) that Australian women suffer serious disadvantages in employment, education , accommodation, membership of licensed clubs, provision of goods and services including services relating to banking, insurance and the provision of grants, loans, credit or finance; (d) that this disadvantage could be overcome by (i) making unlawful certain discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status, (ii) eliminating discrimination on the ground of sex and marital status and (iii) promoting affirmative action for women in employment; Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Parliament pass the Sex and Marital Status Discrimination Bill 1981. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill will reaffirm the commitment of the Australian Government in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women through: 1. Recognition of the dignity of all people through equal rights for women and men. 2. Supporting the rights of women to choose education, employment and lifestyles beyond stereotyped concepts of the roles of the sexes in society. The legislation in no way denies the validity of any particular role, including traditional parental roles. Instead, it recognises the democratic right of all Australians to fully participate in the life of the community. 3. Providing legislative protection against discrimination to women living in States which have no existing anti-discrimination legislation. In this way, it recognises that many Australian women are disadvantaged by discriminatory practices, and particularly recognises the problem of sexual harassment. We, the undersigned, believe that passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 will provide a legislative base to honour the principles of equality incorporated in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and will thus contribute towards making ours a more truly democratic society. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable Members of the House of Representatives will support the legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. 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 we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almightly God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Mr Morrison. 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 Australian Citizenship Act contains provisions for an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance, to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors. That the said Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained, and will strongly oppose any attempts to remove all references to God and The Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and any attempts to remove all references to The Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, is a fundamental human right; and That it is both the duty and the responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society' s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: 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 pray that the Government will reconsider its decision, and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps . by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strongly condemn the Government from allowing all pensioners to earn a certain amount a week or an ''Earnings Concession Year'', then the Government taking the money back as rent in Housing Commission houses and units. And your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament accept the money we have been granted to be frozen as we get no value out of same, and so that way we could have better living conditions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, electors of the Division of Dawson shows that: 1. A Non-Accounting Agency of the Post Office presently situated at Bucasia offers postal facilities to the residents of the beach areas and localities to the North of Mackay. 2. The popular tourist beaches of Bucasia, Blacks Beach, Eimeo and Shoal Point are included in this area and tourists need and use such postal facilities. 3. The Non-Accounting agency of the post office should be maintained in the area at a more central location. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will determine that the existing non-accounting agency of the post office will be transferred to the more central and convenient location of the Hibiscus Shopping Centre situated on the Mackay Shoal Point Road at Bucasia. by Mr Duffy. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that: (a) Too much government aid is given to serve Australia's foreign Policy interests rather than to help the poor. (b) The needs and wishes of the poor are often ignored when projects are being selected and implemented. (c) Projects are often selected and designed to suit what Australia can provide rather than what the poor really need. (d) Technical imputs and expertise are emphasised at the expense of social factors. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government should: (1) Reorient its aid program so that its principal aim is to eliminate chronic proverty in our region. (2) Choose recipient countries systematically on the basis of (a) Need of the people; (b) Likelihood of aid reaching the poorest and (c) Australia's historical links and geographical position. (3) Choose types of aid systematically on the basis of whether the Recipient government has the committment and ability to help the poorest in that country. by Mr Griffiths. 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 accountability in terms of the Covenant: (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1933 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 showeth: 1. That Australia's meat exports are being placed in an uncompetitive position by the imposition of substantial export meat inspection charges whilst Australia 's competitors receive free inspection plus considerable subsidies. 2. These charges are causing substantial loss of business for export abattoir operators and loss of jobs for their employees due to the disparity in inspection costs of export and non-export works arising from a 200 per cent increase in Federal Government charges at export works. 3. That immediate steps should be taken to end serious injury being done by these charges to export abattoir operators, their employees, livestock producers and all others dependant on the Australian meat and livestock industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will act to immediately suspend all export inspection charges for a period of three years. And your petitioners as in duty bond will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we request that the Government take steps to ensure: (1) The construction program of Radford College, Bruce proceeds immediately. (2) Parents freedom of choice in education is fostered by continuing to provide a basic grant for all Australian children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their positions and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Government should stop the import of fully built up cars, trucks and agricultural equipment into Australia. We believe that this along with realistic government monitory policies will create jobs and reduce the unemployment level which is at it's highest since the depression. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled Re: Introduction of train services. Prayer-Your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will agree to the introduction of a three times weekly each way train service between Broken Hill and Islington to connect with Suburban Services into and out of Adelaide. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia ( electors of the division of Grey) respectfully showeth: That controls preventing Adelaide commercial television stations from extending full-strength coverage to the Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie are contrary to the concept of free competition which is the basis of our economic system. That such controls prevent citizens of this important and populous group of decentralised industrial cities from enjoying a freedom of choice in television programs which is in any way comparable to that applying in the metropolitan area. That television is the only form of audio-visual entertainment within the financial scope of a large proportion of the population of this area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. Any restrictions limiting television coverage of this area should be removed and market forces be permitted to stimulate a broader program choice and better quality. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. Petition to the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled Re the deep and urgent concern 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 pray that your Honourable House will readdress 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 Iron 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia. We urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australian uranium. We urge the Government not to permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to Australian Labor Party policy; and We urge the Government to discontinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the people who have signed this petition, ask all parties, Labor, Liberal, Democrats and others, to stop the latest increase in taxes and the forever increases in taxes which hit all people of the country of Australia in all goods and consumer goods and we call for a referendum on taxes and interest rates. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2% in 1983/84 over 1982/83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2%, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8%, 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. by Mr Aldred,Mr Andrew,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Burr,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Connolly,Mr Drummond,Mr Hawker,Mr Lloyd,Mr Millar and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectively showeth that : 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife,Mrs Kelly,Mr Lusher,Mr Peter Morris and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles,Mr Griffiths,Mr Hand,Mr Hawker,Ms Mayer,Mr Saunderson,Mr Steedman and Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are 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 advertisement of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will 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 citizens of Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertisement of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Tasmania respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertisement of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. 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 advertisement of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray: by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. 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 petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. 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 Victoria respectfully showeth that your petitioners are outraged and disturbed by the inhumane slaughter of baby harp seals off the coast of Newfoundland and in particular, the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Magdelen Islands. 1. That, as a people of a democratic society, we urge the Australian Government to halt all imports of seal products. 2. That we can be assured that the murdering of harp seals be discontinued in all forms at the real and perilous threat of extinction of yet another arctic animal species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take heed of their petitioners' protest, and give seals the right to life. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the Citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show: 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: '' The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Taxation Administration Amendment Bill 1983 Message received from the Senate returning the Migration Amendment Bill 1983 and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendment disagreed to by the House. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendment made by the House in the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need for the Government to reconsider its uranium policy in the light of the massive rejection of the policy by 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 BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.55) —Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter- Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the business of the day be called on. Mr PUNCH(Barton) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 214th report of the Committee, relating to Finance minute on Report 181- Canberra Commercial Development Authority, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr PUNCH —Report 214 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's Report 181-Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee' s report on the Canberra Commercial Development Authority-CCDA-was tabled in Parliament on 16 September 1980. The Finance minute was forwarded to the Chairman of the Committee on 19 May 1983. Further information was sought on 22 September 1983, as a result of changed circumstances, namely, the Government's decision not to sell the Belconnen Mall. This was supplied through the Department of Finance on 28 October 1983. The Committee's inquiry arose out of comments in the Auditor-General's Supplementary Report to Parliament in 1977-78. The Auditor-General reported to Parliament several unsatisfactory features concerning the management of CCDA which included failure to observe the provision of its legislation in investment in bank bills without the approval of the Treasurer; payment of salaries and allowances to staff without the approval of the Public Service Board; and unusual practices followed by CCDA with respect to the payment of underwriting fees. CCDA also delayed the publishing of its 1978-79 and later financial statements until a dispute with the Department of Finance over the capitalisation of expenditure net of income and with the Auditor-General over the treatment of depreciation of buildings had been resolved. In its report the Committee made a number of specific recommendations and notes that most have been accepted. Specifically, a nominee of the Department of Territories and Local Government has been appointed to the Authority; the Authority now advertises all staff positions, the Public Works Committee Act 1969 was amended in 1981 to incorporate most statutory authorities within its scope; and the requirement for all authorities to report within six months was incorporated in amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in June 1983. On 14 June 1983 the Committee met separately with the Chairman and officers of the Public Service Board, the Auditor-General and his officers and officers of the Department of Finance. Except for the outstanding issue of buildings depreciation, the Committee was assured that all matters outstanding with CCDA had been satisfactorily resolved. The Committee was later informed that the issue of depreciation had been resolved and the first unqualified accounts of the Authority, for 1981-82, were tabled on 14 November 1983. The Committee also recommended in Report 181 that members of the CCDA Board who were the subject of criticism in its report not be reappointed. However, as a result of a government decision to sell the Belconnen Mall and wind up the activities of CCDA the Committee reluctantly agreed to the Board's reappointment . In light of the subsequent decision of the Government not to sell the Mall, the Committee sought further information through the Department of Finance on the relevant recommendations contained in its report and on the decision to reappoint members of CCDA. In this response, it was stated that particular weight was placed on the advice from the Attorney-General to the Committee in January 1982. The Committee considered that this advice was inadequate. The Committee therefore wishes to reiterate its reasons for making its recommendations. The Committee's inquiry revealed a number of shortcomings in the administration and management of CCDA. It felt that these shortcomings reflected poorly on the management of CCDA. CCDA was established on 1 October 1974 by Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 40 1979 under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. Throughout the inquiry it was clear to the Committee that the Authority ignored the Parliament by its disregard of certain provisions of the Ordinance, which the Authority considered to inhibit its commercial operations. The sections of the Ordinance which placed some restriction on the independence of the Authority are common to most statutory authorities and are fairly basic if some measure of public control is to be retained. Consequently, the Committee believed that the Authority's managers were not willing to accept the responsibilities attached to a public authority. For these reasons the Committee recommended: at the conclusion of the current period of office of members of the CCDA, the Minister should consider restructuring the Authority and those who were subject to criticism in this report not be reappointed; In the course of the Committee's inquiry serious allegations were made concerning the security of tenders. Accordingly, the Committee requested that the former Attorney-General initiate a full inquiry to examine the evidence given to the Committee, the witnesses and any other persons or necessary documents to determine the truth of the allegation. A response from the Attorney -General's Department was not received until 6 January 1982. The advice from the former Attorney-General stated there was no evidence establishing that the CCDA Chairman, Mr Pead, or a contractor were involved in any illegal or unlawful act. In a subsequent in camera hearing to discuss the delay in the Attorney-General's advice, the Crown Solicitor submitted that his office had not looked beyond the evidence supplied to the Committee. The Committee was very dissatisified with this approach. While the Committee found no evidence of impropriety on the part of any member of the Board or staff of CCDA, the Committee considered that some measure of responsibility for the shortcomings in the Authority's administration attached to the two of its members most actively concerned in the Authority's affairs since its inception, namely the Chairman, Mr J. Pead, and former Executive Director, Mr H. Calderwood. Nevertheless, after critical analysis of all the evidence, the Committee concluded that it would have reached the same conclusions relating to the reappointment of the members of CCDA who were the subject of criticism. I advise the House that the Committee notes the assurances outlined in the Finance minute and delivered personally to the Committee by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) with regard to the reappointments made to the CCDA. The Public Accounts Committee intends to keep the reference open and will monitor the activities of CCDA both in the discharge of its duties in the management of the Belconnen Mall and its intended expansion of activities. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —by leave-This is probably one of the most important reports that the Public Accounts Committee has brought to the Parliament. It relates to the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. In particular it deals with the management and development of the Belconnen shopping mall. The management of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority did not comprehend or accept the responsibilities that are proper for a public authority. The annual reports were delayed and financial statements for 1981-82 were submitted only within the last few days. For the first time they are unqualified. It has taken nine years for the Authority to get its accounts and its public operations in line with the requirements of the Auditor-General and of proper public administration. Matters have been dealt with by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), who tabled the report of the Public Accounts Committee. They involve the approval of the Treasurer for certain borrowings, the approval of the Public Service Board in regard to the appointment of staff, which was not sought, the approval of financial statements, and the capacity to work within the legislation and the Ordinance establishing the Authority. The excuse of differences in interpretation of the Ordinance was offered by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority as a reason for not sticking to that Ordinance. The authority did not seek an opinion on the ordinance, nor did it apply for a variation. Where it sought information that information was used selectively when given to the Committee. It is not reasonable to expect an authority of the Parliament to conduct itself in this way. The boards of Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans Australia Airlines or any other commercial public organisation could not be allowed to continue as the Board of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority has. It is a most serious situation. Despite the comments of the Auditor-General and of the Public Accounts Committee, whose report was most critical, the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has seen fit to reappoint the Board of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. Parliament does not and cannot expect appointees to behave in such a way as to ignore their responsibilities, to go to the very fringe of proper commercial behaviour and, on the other hand, be dragged unwillingly to observe their legal requirements and responsibilities by the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. The standard set by this organisation is not good enough. It is completely unacceptable. The appointees to any organisation, must be willing to inform themselves firstly of their responsibilities. When appointments are made the appointees must be willing to report regularly and on time to the Parliament or their Minister and they must at all times seek advice on restrictions and advise their Ministers and the Parliament on restrictions placed on their capacity to complete the tasks they have been given. People chosen to do jobs on behalf of the taxpayer must be chosen for their integrity as well as their ability. They are acting on behalf of the Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee could have pursued a number of alternatives. It could have continued the public inquiry regarding all matters, which may have included criminal matters, with legal representation for both the Committee and the parties involved. It could have referred the matter to one of the departments of State or it could have ignored the whole matter. The Committee chose to refer the whole subject to the Attorney-General and his Department. There was a long delay in the response from the Attorney-General's Department and finally, with regret, because of the time that had expired, the Committee accepted short extensions of the appointments to the Board because it was the then Government's intention to sell Belconnen Mall. However, the Minister for Territories and Local Government has indicated that he will not be proceeding with the sale and he has reappointed members of the Board. The Government has also expanded the activities of the Authority to cover additional projects. The Minister's explanation that he will exercise greater ministerial supervision and his commitment that these matters will not be repeated indicate that he has taken full responsibility for all previous activities of the Authority. I cannot remember an occasion on which such a serious allegation and such a serious report prepared by the senior standing committee of the Parliament have been ignored by the Executive. The Minister's attitude has tended to show a lack of appreciation of the serious matters involved. In fact, he has rejected the main finding of the Committee. This brings into question the role of committees of the Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee has suggested that Mr Speaker appoint proper legal officers to serve committees, to advise on matters such as criminal negligence or the prospect of criminal activity, so that prompt accurate advice can be given and the proper processes of the law undertaken. The alternative, and it is one that I prefer, is for committees of the Parliament to take on themselves the role that the committees of the United States Congress adopt, that is, to have full legal representation so that the committees can properly pursue the matters raised before them. That is the only alternative with which committees of the Parliament will be faced from now on. It is with great regret that the Committee learned that the Minister has chosen to ignore its basic findings. He has not cleared the situation in any way. No inquiry of the type the Committee wished has been conducted, so there is a cloud over the whole exercise. It is most regrettable and it will have long and lasting ramifications in the activities of parliamentary committees. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-I note that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), who is responsible for the Australian Capital Territory, is not present in the chamber, nor are the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), both of whom are intimately involved in the success of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The 214th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, which was tabled in this House this evening, noted in its conclusions this most significant fact: After critical analysis of all the evidence the Committee concluded that it would have reached the same conclusion relating to the reappointment of the members of the CCDA who were the subject of criticism. I am grateful that the fourteenth Public Accounts Committee has confirmed the recommendations made by the twelfth Committee, which has on occasions been subject to unfair criticism by the current Minister for Territories and Local Government, who evidently believes, and probably for his own reasons, that the PAC under my chairmanship denied natural justice to the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the CCDA, Messrs Pead and Calderwood, who were responsible for the Authority at the time of the Auditor-General's report and the Public Accounts Committee's subsequent inquiry. Mr Ruddock —They appeared before the Committee, didn't they? Mr CONNOLLY —That is correct. On behalf of the other members who served on that Committee it is my duty I believe to reject what I think is a most serious attack on the credibility of the Committee by the Minister. I should also point out that the twelfth Committee comprised none other than the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin), the present Minister for Primary Industry, and the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) a lawyer, who is now the Minister for Science and Technology. Furthermore, the thirteenth Committee, which was also involved in this investigation, had among its members another lawyer, Mr Michael Duffy, now the Minister for Communications. Therefore, any aspersions which the Minister may wish to make against the members of that Committee are effectively made against his own ministerial colleagues, colleagues I must emphasise who gave their full support to this inquiry and to its recommendations . I should reiterate that this inquiry arose out of the unsatisfactory comments made by the Auditor-General in his report to Parliament upon the management of the CCDA. Furthermore, during the period 1979 to 1980 there was dissatisfaction among the Canberra community with certain aspects of the administration of the Belconnen Mall and of its construction. Some of the criticism was put before the Public Accounts Committee. In many respects this was an unusual inquiry. The fact that it spanned nearly five years demonstrates that. But it is essential to place on the record that at no time did the Committee in any way attempt to deny natural justice to any of the witnesses who came before it. For the benefit of the House I shall briefly refer to the atmosphere surrounding this inquiry. In addition to the local concerns which I have already mentioned, Parliament became aware of some fundamental difficulties in ensuring that statutory authorities were responsible to the Parliament. During that period a number of authorities, in particular the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Dairy Corporation, received extensive criticism from the Auditor- General and from other committees of the Parliament due to their failure, among other things, to meet normal accounting guidelines and to table their annual reports. Unfortunately, the Canberra Commercial Development Authority appeared to us to be yet another example of a statutory authority determined to do its own thing regardless of the fact that it was meant to operate within statutory guidelines. The Committee's report noted: The Authority's submissions were generally uniformative, inadequate and at times misleading: the oral evidence of the Authority's witnesses was at times inaccurate. In fact, Mr Pead's attitude towards the inquiry left much to be desired. The report went on to state: While the Board of the Authority must take collective responsibility for the criticism embodied in this Report, the Committee considers that some measure of responsibility for the Authority's action attaches to two of its members most actively concerned in the Authority's affairs since its inception, namely the Chairman, Mr James Pead, MBE, and former Executive Director, Mr Harris Calderwood. The Committee noted that they demonstrated little willingness to work within the established procedures required of all public authorities.' In regard to the unsatisfactory procedures noted by the Auditor-General, the Committee said: The Authority had left itself open to accusations of patronage in selecting its employees. A further most important criticism was that the Committee 'is not satisfied that conditions for security of tenders were adequate during the period of the Mall's construction.' I should point out that we received allegations from two witnesses which led us to believe that the matter should be further investigated by an appropriate authority, and we so resolved, in the interests of the witnesses and the reputation of the Authority's members. That recommendation was made in our 181st report, notwithstanding the fact that the Committee had found no evidence of impropriety on the part of any member of the Board or of the staff of the CCDA. We deliberately decided that it was not our place to be judge and jury and we did not see it as relevant to our work to have to seek incriminatory evidence. It should be emphasised that the Committee's recommendation that 'the CCDA's Board be restructured and that those who were subject to criticism not be reappointed' was made solely on the basis of our findings in regard to the original complaints contained in the Auditor-General's report. This recommendation was in no way related to the allegations that had been made and which I deeply regret to this day have not been adequately examined by appropriate authorities so as to ensure that members of the CCDA Board are given the opportunity to clear their names from any innuendo which may still be present as a result of the original allegations. The Committee definitely did the right thing in asking the then Attorney-General to initiate a full inquiry into this matter. It is a matter of great concern that it took 16 months for us to receive a response which even then was unsatisfactory. In the PAC's 214th report tabled this evening there is some background on this matter, in particular a chronology setting out the numerous correspondence on this matter which took place as well as my letter to the then Attorney-General on 27 May 1981 and his response. This saga demonstrates only too clearly the inability of the Solicitor-General, the official legal adviser of committees of this Parliament, to support us with adequate legal advice. On 25 March 1982 in an effort to finalise this unfortunate matter, the Committee received evidence from Mr O'Donovan, the Crown Solicitor. That was necessary because the Committee felt that its earlier recommendation for a full inquiry into the allegations made by Messrs Parker and Parsons against the Chairman of the Authority had not been thoroughly examined. The essence of the allegation was that tender documents for the construction of the Belconnen Mall were not held securely and it was alleged that the Chairman of the Authority had access to them. Accordingly, we recommended that 'the Attorney-General initiate a full investigation of the matter, examining the evidence given to the Committee, the witnesses and any other persons or necessary documents to clarify and determine the truth of the allegations'. The PAC believed then, and I understand it still believes today, that despite its expertise the Committee is not equipped, nor should it ever be placed in a position in which it needs to act as a court of law. As I said on that occasion, 'Wherever we come in contact with any question of wrongdoing of a criminal nature, it should not be the role of a parliamentary committee to pursue the matter any further'. We took the action we believed correct, namely to refer to matter to the Attorney-General's Department. Mr O'Donovan, the Crown Solicitor, emphasised that the examination of the allegations by his Department was limited to the evidence before the Committee. But, as I emphasised earlier, we took the minimum amount of evidence possible because we did not see that as being within our province. Furthermore, he went on to say that the Attorney-General's Department was not equipped for such investigation and used a somewhat spurious excuse that the allegations put before the Department were contained in evidence taken by the Committee in camera. It is true that under the Public Accounts Committee Act such evidence cannot be disclosed except at the lawful direction of the Committee. However, it is a sad fact that over that period of some 16 months of unacceptable delay no attempt was ever made by the Attorney-General's Department to advise us that we should have gone to the police or should have requested that the in camera evidence be released. Whatever the reasons for that delay I am firmly of the view, as was the twelfth Committee, that the relationship between committees of this Parliament and their legal advisers must be significantly improved. It is intolerable that anyone should be in a position in which a parliamentary committee is in any sense responsible for denying an Australian citizen natural justice. Long after this unfortunate affair was completed, and certainly not to the satisfacation of the Public Accounts Committee, we received a telex message from Messrs Parker and Parsons advising us that they would be happy to give evidence before any inquiry into the matters which were originally the subject of our investigation. That matter has still not been settled. In all honesty, I believe that justice may well have been denied in this case. In fact, we have fallen between two stools: On the one hand allegations were made and were referred to in a public report made by the Public Accounts Committee to this Parliament and, on the other hand, they have never been sufficiently tested. Those against whom the allegations were made have every reason to say thay they have not been given the opportunity to clear their names. When this question was raised by Mr O' Donovan, his advice, which confirmed that given to us earlier by the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, was that we should lay a complaint with the Commonwealth Police. He noted, however, that the Police would be unable to more than interview the parties involved who would not be required to offer incriminating evidence. Furthermore, the delay had been so long that the trail was, in legal parlance, somewhat cold. In view of the fact that the Minister for Territories and Local Government has chosen to retain Mr Pead as Chairman of the CCDA and has ignored a key recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, surely it is necessary that any person who feels he was badly done by in terms of the evidence given before this inquiry should now be given the opportunity to clear his name of the allegations made against him. As I see it, the only way this can be achieved is by a properly constituted judicial inquiry. Finally, Mr Speaker, you must ensure that no committee of this Parliament should again find itself placed in such an unenviable position as the Public Accounts Committee has been placed over the last five years. The time may come when we will follow the United States Congress example and take evidence from witnesses with the support of counsel. This is not a course that I personally would recommend. But above all, justice must be seen to be done at all times, and certainly this Parliament must ensure that that is so. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate amendments- No. 1-Page 33, clause 9, proposed new sub-section 25Z (1), line 38, leave out '' (4)'', insert ''(6)''. No. 2-Page 55, clause 24, proposed new paragraph 39C (1) (d), line 17, leave out ''or''. No. 3-Page 55, clause 24, after proposed new paragraph 39C (1) (e), insert the following word and paragraph: ''; or (ea) in a case in which there is no Subdivision for enrolment for which the person can apply in pursuance of paragraph (c), (d) or (e)-the Subdivison with which the person has the closest connection,''. No. 4-Page 56, clause 24, after proposed new sub-section 39C (5), insert the following sub-section: '' '(5A) Where an Australian Electoral Officer notifies a person under sub- section (5) of a decision to refuse an application made under sub-section (1), the notice shall include a statement to the effect that a person whose interests are affected by the decision may, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, if he is dissatisfied with the decision, make an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision.''. No. 5-Page 58, clause 28, paragraph (a), line 24, leave out ''39B or 39C'', insert ''39B, 39C or 41A''. No. 6-Page 60, clause 29, proposed sub-section 43 (4), line 15, leave out '' shall not be considered'', insert ''received''. No. 7-Page 60, clause 29, proposed sub-section 43 (4), line 17, after ''election '', insert ''shall not be considered until after the expiration of that period'' . No. 8-Page 61, clause 30, after proposed new sub-section 46A (4), insert the following sub-section: '' '(4A) Where a Divisional Returning Officer grants or refuses a request made by a person under sub-section (1) or (2), the Divisional Returning Officer shall notify the person in writing of the decision.''. No. 9-Page 66, clause 42, after proposed sub-section 58 (2), insert the following new sub-section: '' '(2A) Where a Divisional Returning Officer for a Division- (a) notifies a person under sub-section 39B (5) that an application made by the person under sub-section 39B (1) has been refused; (b) notifies a person under sub-section 46A (4A) that a request made by the person under sub-section 46A (1) or (2) has been refused; (c) notifies a person under sub-section 86 (9) that the person is not enrolled for a Division; or (d) notifies a person under sub-section 86 (10) that the person is not a prescribed elector within the meaning of section 86, the person may, before the expiration of the period of 28 days commencing on the day on which he is so notified, request the Divisional Returning Officer, in writing, to refer- (e) the application made by the person under sub-section 39B (1); (f) the request made by the person under sub-section 46A (1) or (2); or (g) the application made by the person under sub-section 86 (2), as the case may be, to the Australian Electoral Officer for the State that includes that Division for review.''. No. 10-Page 66, clause 42, proposed sub-section 58 (3), line 14, leave out ''or (2)'', insert '', (2) or (2A)''. No. 11-Page 66, clause 42, before proposed paragraph 58 (3) (a), insert the following new paragraph: ''(aa) any relevant application made under sub-section 39B (1);''. No. 12-Page 66, clause 42, after proposed paragraph 58 (3) (b), insert the following new paragraph: ''(ba) any relevant request made under sub-section 46A (1) or (2);''. No. 13-Page 66, clause 42, proposed paragraph 58 (3) (f), line 21, leave out '' and''. No. 14-Page 66, clause 42, after proposed paragraph 58 (3) (f), insert the following new paragraph: ''(fa) any relevant application made under section 86; and''. No. 15-Page 66, clause 42, proposed sub-section 58 (4), line 25, leave out ''or objection'', insert '', objection, application or request''. No. 16-Page 66, clause 42, proposed sub-section 58 (4), line 27, leave out ''or objection'', insert '', objection, application or request''. No. 17-Page 66, clause 42, proposed sub-section 58 (6), line 36, leave out ''or (2)'', insert '', (2) or (2A)''. No. 18-Page 67, clause 42, proposed sub-section 58AA (1), lines 12 to 14, leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-section: '' '58AA. (1) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of- (a) a decision made by an Australian Electoral Officer refusing an application made under sub-section 39C (1); or (b) a decision made by an Australian Electoral Officer under sub-section 58 (5) .''. No. 19-Page 73, clause 42, proposed section 58N, at end of section, add the following new sub-section: '' '(3) Where a political party is de-registered under sub-section (1), that party, or a party that has a name that so nearly resembles the name of the de- registered party that it is likely to be confused with or mistaken for that name , is ineligible for registration under this Part until after the general election next following the de-registration.''. No. 20-Page 74, clause 42, after proposed sub-section 58P (2), insert the following new sub-section: '' '(3) A Parliamentary party shall not be de-registered under this section.''. No. 21-Page 81, clause 42, proposed paragraph 58Z (4) (c), lines 37 and 38, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ''(c) the Commission is satisfied, after making such enquiries as it thinks appropriate of the registered officer of that party or otherwise, that the candidate is so endorsed.''. No. 22-Page 81, clause 42, proposed section 58Z, at end of section, add the following new sub-section: '' '(6) A reference in sub-section (4) to the registered officer of a political party shall be read as including a reference to any person nominated by the registered officer of that party to be a deputy registered officer of that party for the purposes of that sub-section by notice in writing, specifying the name and address of the person and signed by the registered officer, lodged with the Commission, not being a nomination that has been cancelled by notice in writing, signed by the registered officer, lodged with the Commission.''. No. 23-Page 87, clause 52, proposed paragraph 71 (2) (a), line 19, after '' enrolled;'', insert ''or''. No. 24-Page 87, clause 52, proposed paragraph 71 (2) (b), line 22, leave out '' enrolled; or'', insert ''enrolled.''. No. 25-Page 87, clause 52, proposed paragraph 71 (2) (c), lines 23 to 28, leave out the proposed paragraph. No. 26-Page 95, clause 63, paragraph (d), proposed new paragraph 87 (3) (b), lines 14 to 17, leave out the proposed paragraph. No. 27-Page 95, clause 63, paragraph (d), proposed sub-section 87 (4), line 23, leave out ''in writing''. No. 28-Page 103, clause 80, proposed sub-section 106 (2), line 18, after '' orders'', insert '', or any of 3 orders,''. No. 29-Page 103, clause 80, proposed sub-section 106 (4), line 32, after ''2'', insert ''or 3''. No. 30-Page 103, clause 80, proposed sub-section 106 (4), line 33, leave out '' may be'', insert ''requires''. No. 31-Page 103, clause 80, proposed sub-section 106 (5), line 37, after ''2'', insert ''or 3''. No. 32-Page 105, clause 80, proposed paragraph 106C (2) (c), lines 39 to 41, leave out the proposed paragraph. No. 33-Page 105, clause 80, proposed paragraph 106C (2) (d), line 42, leave out ''where paragraph (c) does not apply-''. No. 34-Page 106, clause 80, proposed paragraph 106C (2) (e), line 1, leave out ' 'where paragraph (c) applies'', insert ''where only the name, or a name, of 1 party is so entered''. No. 35-Page 106, clause 82, proposed section 107A, line 32, after ''2'', insert ''or 3''. No. 36-Page 106, clause 82, at end of proposed section 107A, add the following new sub-section: '' '(2) Where there are 2 or more tickets to be displayed in a poster in accordance with sub-section (1), their relative positions on that poster shall be determined by lot.''. No. 37-Page 126, clause 103, proposed paragraph 133B (1) (b), lines 7 to 13, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ''(b) has- (i) in a case where there are more than 9 candidates in the election -in not less than 90% of the squares opposite to the names of candidates, numbers in a sequence of consecutive numbers commencing with the number 1 or numbers that with changes to no more than 3 of them would be in such a sequence; or (ii) in any other case-in all the squares opposite to the names of candidates or in all those squares except one square that is left blank, numbers in a sequence of consecutive numbers commencing with the number 1 or numbers that with changes to no more than 2 of them would be in such a sequence; and''. No. 38-Page 126, clause 103, proposed paragraphs 133B (1) (f) and (g), lines 19 to 27, leave out the proposed paragraphs, insert the following paragraphs: ''(f) where numbers in squares opposite to the names of candidates are in a sequence of consecutive numbers commencing with the number 1-the voter shall be taken to have expressed a preference by the other number, or to have expressed preferences by the other numbers, in that sequence; and (g) the voter shall not be taken to have expressed any other preference.''. No. 39-Page 126, clause 103, proposed paragraphs 133B (2) (f) and (g), lines 39 to 43 and page 127, lines 1 to 4, leave out the proposed paragraphs, insert the following paragraphs and sub-section: ''(f) where numbers in squares opposite to the names of candidates are in a sequence of consecutive numbers commencing with the number 1-the voter shall be taken to have expressed a preference by the other number, or to have expressed preferences by the other numbers, in that sequence; and (g) the voter shall not be taken to have expressed any other preference. '(3) In considering, for the purposes of sub-section (1) or (2), whether numbers are in a sequence of consecutive numbers, any number that is repeated shall be disregarded.''. No. 40-Page 127, clause 104, after proposed sub-section 134A (2), insert the following new sub-section: '' '(2A) For the purposes of section 135 where- (a) in a Senate election a ballot-paper has, or ballot-papers have, been marked in accordance with sub-section 123 (1A) by a mark having been placed in a square printed above the names of candidates in a group; and (b) the candidates in that group have 3 group voting tickets registered for the purposes of that election, then- (c) if the number of ballot-papers is a number divisible by 3 without any remainder-one-third of the ballot-papers shall be taken to have been marked in accordance with one of the tickets, one-third of the ballot-papers shall be taken to have been marked in accordance with another one of the tickets and the other one-third in accordance with the other ticket; (d) if there is only one ballot-paper or the number of ballot-papers is a number divisible by 3 with a remainder of 1- (i) the ballot-paper or one of the ballot-papers shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with whichever of the 3 tickets is determined by lot by the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory; and (ii) one-third of the remainder of the ballot-papers (if any) shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with one of the tickets, one-third of that remainder shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with another one of the tickets and the other one-third of that remainder shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with the other ticket; or (e) if there are 2 ballot-papers or the number of ballot-papers is a number divisible by 3 with a remainder of 2- (i) one of the ballot-papers shall be taken to have been marked in accordance with whichever of the 3 tickets is determined by lot by the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory; (ii) one of the ballot-papers shall be taken to have been marked in accordance with whichever of the other 2 tickets is determined by lot by the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory; and (iii) one-third of the remainder of the ballot-papers (if any) shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with one of the tickets, one-third of that remainder shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with another one of the tickets and the other one-third of that remainder shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with the other ticket.''. No. 41-Page 127, clause 104, proposed sub-section 134A (3), line 36, after ''2'' , insert ''or (2A), as the case requires,''. No. 42-Page 128, clause 104, proposed paragraph 134A (4) (b), line 1, after ''2' ', insert ''or 3''. No. 43-Page 128, clause 105, after paragraph (b), insert the following new paragraphs: ''(ba) by omitting from paragraph (1) (d) all the words after 'ballot-papers'; (bb) by omitting from paragraph (1) (h) all the words after 'sub-section';''. No. 44-Page 130, clause 105, after proposed sub-section 135 (15), insert the following new sub-section: '' '(15A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, where, on the completion of a transfer of votes under this section, the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of remaining unfilled vacancies, those candidates shall be elected.''. No. 45-Page 132, clause 105, proposed sub-section 135 (24), lines 28 to 37, leave out the proposed sub-section. No. 46-Page 134, clause 109, proposed sub-section 140A (1), lines 23 and 24, leave out ''as if in sub-section 135 (6) 'half' were inserted before 'the number of candidates' '', insert: ''as if- (a) in sub-section 135 (6) 'half' were inserted before 'the number of candidates'; and (b) the only names of candidates appearing on the ballot-papers were the names of the candidates elected at the election and the numbers indicating preferences had been altered accordingly.''. No. 47-Page 163, clause 114, after proposed sub-section 161 (2), insert the following new sub-section: '' '(2A) A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, an advertisement, handbill, pamphlet or notice that contains a representation or purported representation of a ballot-paper for use in that election that is likely to induce an elector to mark his vote otherwise than in accordance with the directions on the ballot- paper.''. No. 48-Page 163, clause 114, proposed sub-section 161 (3), line 14, leave out '' or (2)'', insert '', (2) or (2A)''. No. 49-Page 180, Schedule 1, proposed Form E, leave out ''5'' (wherever occurring). No. 50-Page 180, Schedule 1, proposed Form E, proposed note commencing with ''3' ', leave out ''and candidates grouped together are in different parties''. No. 51-Page 180, Schedule 1, proposed Form E, leave out proposed note commencing with ''5''. No. 52-Page 180, Schedule 1, proposed Form E, after ''one'', insert '', and one only,''. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(9.22) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Senate has forwarded to us some 52 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill which amendments, by their very number, may seem daunting, but this is a daunting Bill. In fact, when the amendments are reviewed it will be seen that the vast majority of them are of a substantially technical nature. For example, amendments Nos. 8 to 18 flow from comments of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and provide for the internal review of divisional returning officers' decisions regarding the enrolment of the spouse or child of an eligible overseas elector, silent enrolments and registration of general postal voters, subsequent Administrative Appeals Tribunal review of such decisions and Australian Electoral Officer's decision on itinerant enrolments. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee is, of course, an all party committee and essentially arrives at technical judgments on the nature of the material before it. It does not really alter the principle of a Bill. Many of the other amendments are amendments which were initiated in the Senate by the Australian Democrats and the Independent senator. But as I witnessed a great deal of the Senate debate, in many instances the Democrats in the Senate were responding to points put to them by the Liberal Party of Australia. Indeed, honourable gentlemen opposite may have a recollection of one or two of those matters that they themselves brought before us in this place. I refer, of course , in that regard to amendment No. 27 which deals with provisions for witnessing postal vote applications, an amendment not dissimilar to that moved by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) which we felt was misguided at the time but which we subsequently saw some reason behind. As I said, the rest of the amendments are amendments which were initiated by the Democrats. On the whole, most of them went through the Senate without division. A couple of them cleaned up matters that we thought were clear but which were not clear. Amendment No. 5 is an instance of that. It ensures the provisional enrolment of 17-year-olds is not compulsory. There was some suggestion when we got round to looking at the Bill that we may have inadvertently made compulsory a situation which we really did not intend to be compulsory. So we dealt with that. There are also some matters relating to the registration of political parties which were raised again by the Democrats and the Independent senator which we accepted. I suppose that the only really very substantial change from that which we put forward ourselves is that which permits the two-sided voting ticket to be extended to the registration of a three-sided ticket. That followed some considerable discussion in the Senate and was agreed upon by all the parties to it including that of the honourable member for Boothby. Mr Steele Hall —Ha, ha! Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for Boothby can chortle away but that is the case. They seemed to take that matter rather seriously at the time and brought that forward. There are one or two other amendments which add to the fairness of the proposals which have been brought forward, based essentially, as they all are, on the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I think, therefore, that the matters entailed in all of the amendments have been very well canvassed in a fairly lengthy Senate process. They do not require the detention of the Committee for too great a length of time. We are, as a government, prepared to accept these changes. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.26) —The Opposition is being kind to the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) this evening because really it would have done justice to the amendments if he had moved them singly and explained them fully to the Committee. I must admit, however, that upon his request we have agreed to this process. I do not criticise him for it but I remind him that in this matter the Opposition has been most considerate in relieving him of a duty. I am sure it would tax even his considerable talents to explain every detail to the Committee in a meaningful way. We adopt that attitude, of course, because we believe he is one of the more watertight Ministers of his Government. We are happy to co-operate in that manner. However, whilst he makes a case for a general acceptance of these amendments moved in length here tonight, that does not say that we agree with all of them as if they are the considered wisdom of the Senate and are an improvement to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. Some of the amendments are, as the Minister has indicated, patently silly. However, as they follow the Bill as it went from this place and perhaps except in one instance do not draw in new principles, one cannot substantiate a major case for carrying the debate here to the nth degree. May I remind the Minister that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 expand the ability of an itinerant voter to enrol. The legislation was kind in this regard. It was an expansive piece of legislation. The aim of the Bill is to widen people's ability to vote. Both Houses, I am sure, supported that intention of the Bill and that was the basis behind this special provision of 'itinerant voters' for the first time in the Bill. But to now enable an itinerant voter to choose to enrol at a subdivision with which he or she has the closest connection seems to me to make a nonsense of any safeguards originally written into this legislation as to at least containing an itinerant's choice of enrolment to some place of lodging, next of kin or so on. To say the 'closest connection' is to ask, I suppose, for the closest scrutiny of all the other factors that the itinerant could have chosen to enrol. Is that to be the case? Are we assured by the Minister that the itinerant so enrolling will be put to the full test about every other area in which he can enrol before he gets to the closest connection. We do not want itinerant voters to be able to choose in bulk to go to an area in which they can influence a specific marginal seat. I should like the Minister to respond to this matter, if he could, a little later in this debate because it is a matter of some consequence. We do not want, as I said, a free choice of voters. It is yet one further genuine step to allow itinerants to vote if they are frozen out of any other place and have not resided somewhere for more than a month. That is a great controlling factor as to whether they can be classed as itinerants at all. But if they come within this category we must know from the Minister that there is a safeguard and that this cannot be misused for a blatantly party political purpose to load up a marginal seat with a series of voters who are favourable to the party so involved. I now turn to amendment No. 5 which was passed by the Senate. This amendment ensures, as the Minister indicated, that the provisional enrolment of 17-year- olds is not compulsory. That does not make the intention any better. We in the Opposition have said that we support the proposal that 17-year-olds should be able to vote if they turn 18 before the poll and after the date of proclamation or after the date of polling is known. It is only sensible that no one should be excluded by the accident of their birthday following the polling. But to go back and say that when one is 17 one can enrol provisionally is only, we believe, to search out a new demand which will inevitably come from 17-year-olds that they should get the vote. In proposing this in the first instance the Government must consider the proposal to lower the voting age to 17. The Government would never have ventured down the track from 18-year-olds to 17 -year-olds unless it had studied that question. I believe it is setting the scene for that demand. I do not think the community wants that, and I do not approve it. In any event, the administrative difficulties that that provision will create for the roll must be of some consequence. There must be some additional work load for the Australian Electoral Office if two types of people are to be enrolled; that is, those who are enrolled but cannot vote because of age and all the rest who can. This does not make the amendment any more acceptable. It obviously takes out some fault that was not intended to be in the legislation when the Government drew it up. It does not, as I have said, make more acceptable the enrolment of 17-year-olds before any election date is known. There are other amendments. The Minister referred to amendments Nos 4 to 18 which, as he said, came from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. There are one or two very sensible amendments. Amendment No. 22 stipulates that a party's registered officer may appoint a deputy for the purpose of verifying candidates. That is a very sensible administrative matter. Without that capacity there could be great inconvenience or a great blockage in the system if the deputy were not available in the absence of the registered officer. The modifying provisions relating to the witnessing of postal vote applications to make them more workable is at least one case of the Senate prevailing on the Minister to be more sensible that he was when he dealt with the Bill in the House of Representatives. You would remember, Mr Deputy Chairman , that the Minister was quite insensible to this restrictive clause that he included in this legislation which made it an offence for an innocent voter to obtain a postal vote application from a post office and to meet a friend in the street and say: 'Will you witness this for me?' The Minister was going to make that an offence. In any event the Senate has seen this and said to the Minister: 'You had better do otherwise'. The Minister now understands that he was wrong in the first place and has accepted this amendment. I now turn to possibly the silliest proposal in this electoral legislation, apart from the principle of public funding, which of course was dealt with in other debates. But this proposal takes the first prize for being illogical and recomplicating an area from which the Government said it wanted to take complication. Amendments Nos 28, 31, 35, 40 and 42 make provision to register a two-sided voting ticket. You might remember, Mr Deputy Chairman, the criticism that originated at the proposal for two-sided tickets-that is, that someone with a list system could register two different minds as to how they wanted to vote. After all, that is not the position which one would adopt to produce a sound decision in any election. But the legislation was passed with the quite silly proposals of the Government to allow one tick in the list system of voting to allocate preferences from two registered decisions of one party. I take it in that circumstance that the votes would have been arbitrarily divided 50-50. But now, good heavens, it comes from the Senate-we have not two but three sides . The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) cannot envisage that the Government would be so insensible to the point that this would then result in an arbitrary decision to divide in the circumstances that a party chooses to register three ways of voting? It would be rather interesting if the Government tried to do that; we would have triangles all over the place. The votes are to be divided, as I understand it, 33 per cent each way. Dr Klugman —Thirty three and a third. Mr STEELE HALL —What a decision. I thank the honourable member for being so precise. How on earth can anyone allocate those votes and be sure in conscience that they are doing justice to the voting system? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(9.36) —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) made the good point that the Opposition is considerate in allowing us to deal with all these amendments from the Senate in one go. I think the Opposition has indeed been highly considerate. In the Senate it did not dispute public funding or the question of the list system for Senate voting. All the Opposition wanted to do was to extend it. I think that is fair enough. After all, the party of the honourable member for Boothby brought in the list system. The Liberal Party recommended the list system of voting. The introduction of the two-sided, and now three-sided, system is of course due to the Opposition. The Australian Labor Party brings out only one how to vote ticket. It would suit us much better to register a single how to vote ticket. However, in the last couple of elections the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia, at least in Queensland, ran two separate Senate teams. It was therefore felt, for example, that the Democrats, who wanted to give preferences either to the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Labor Party, should be able to register three suggested how to vote tickets. I am not enamoured of the idea of having three tickets. I think the recommendations by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, of a maximum of two, was a better proposition. I now turn to the matter of the enrolment of 17-year-olds. The honourable member for Boothby referred to the great administrative difficulties which could arise. I suggest that if the amendment moved earlier by the honourable member for Boothby were passed administrative difficulties would indeed arise. I remind the Committee that the aim of that proposition is to allow those who turn 18 before the date of an election to vote. The proposition from the Opposition was that they should be able to register only during the six-day period between the announcement of the election and the closure of the rolls. That would indeed cause quite significant difficulties because of the large number of people who would have to enrol if they turned 18 in the following 28 days that elapse. We felt that it would make it less difficult if people enrolled as soon as they turned 17, if they wanted to, in case an election was called. There is no suggestion that the 17-year-olds will get a vote. It is one of the Opposition's fears which I can understand, because it is worried about the young vote, but that should not be a real fear. On the matter of enrolling people who have no clear cut subdivision to which they belong, it is important to remember that there are people in Australia who are in that position. It is a question of itinerants. The Committee also had raised before it the question of persons who, for example, join the Navy before they turn 18. At the time of turning 18 they are not resident in a subdivision in Australia for the purposes of registration because they are on a ship. Until now, they have not been able to obtain registration. Hopefully we have helped them to do so by establishing some sort of relationship to some subdivision or next of kin. I think that in general, even though many amendments have been found necessary in the Senate, we can still be pleased. I should like to congratulate the draftsman, the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), the Australian Electoral Office, and to some extent our own Committee for being able to produce such a Bill. The Committee produced some 180 closely printed pages of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918. I would have expected many more problems to have arisen when they were examined in great detail. These amendments were all produced in a very short space of time. I think everybody connected with the legislation can be quite pleased that so few difficulties or contradictions have been found in the legislation. I have no doubt that when the legislation comes into force we will find some other problems and there will have to be some minor amendments next year, the year after, or whenever they are found. I think it is an exceptionally pleasing aspect of the legislation that we have these 187 pages of amendments to the previous Act and so few further amendments have been found necessary, either in this House or in the Senate. I commend the Minister for accepting the amendments from the Senate. I think some of them at least will improve the legislation and are reasonably fair. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.43) —I had nearly finished my remarks on these amendments. I am bemused to some degree by the seemimgly constant reference by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) to the fact that the Liberal Party of Australia as an organisation submitted to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform the matter of the list system and supported the list system for the Senate. The honourable member would recognise that this was done on the basis that it was second best to the existing system of going through the whole voting procedure. Another thing the honourable member should understand-I take it that it is very difficult for him to understand it because of his position in and membership of the Australian Labor Party-is that that is not the policy of the parliamentary Liberal Party and would not be put into effect in this House by the parliamentary Party, which is a quite different view from that put to the Committee by the Federal secretariat of the Liberal Party organisation. Dr Klugman —That is your problem. Mr STEELE HALL —It is not my problem. It is the advantage and one of the great strengths of the Liberal Party. One of the great problems of the Labor Party is demonstrated for all to see now as the Party fights for the dominance which its rules say it should have over the parliamentary Party. That is so evident in the argument about uranium in the community today. There can be no greater evidence of the strains and convulsions of a party which is bound by those restrictive rules which say that the lay party shall direct the parliamentary Party in matters of policy. That does not apply to the Liberal Party. I would like the honourable member for Prospect to understand that when he raises issues, as he has done several times about the list system, in regard to the parliamentary Party's view. I finish my remarks by saying that we on this side are lost when considering the logic which supports a three-sided recommendation which can be ticked in one box and come into effect arbitrarily for the allocation of preferences and the 33 1/3 per cent ration. There is no sense or justice in that. The Government, in allowing this to proceed, is setting up a system whereby Senate seats might very well be thrown simply on this draw of votes at 33 1/3 per cent, which could be quite regardless of the intention of the voter in choosing the convenience of the list system. Many of the other amendments are sensible and some are very sensible. The modifying of the formality of the Senate vote in order to embody the view that a serious attempt should be made by electors to number ballot papers correctly I think is very sensible and goes part of the way towards meeting the objective of the amendment I moved in this place on behalf of the coalition. It was aimed at ensuring that votes were serious attempts by the voter and that one could not simply vote 1 and repeat all the rest of the numbers in 4s or any other number of choice. There has to be a serious attempt to vote. I think that amendment is very valuable. The Senate has been very wise to discipline the Government in this matter and to make sure that, as is now embodied in this amendment, no one can really vote in a Senate election and not make a serious attempt to vote. Errors will be accepted, but under this amendment provision, they must truly be errors and not an attempt to make an ass of the voting system. The other amendments, such as those to proscribe advertisements containing representation on a ballot paper and so on are quite sensible. Having looked at them, I find that I have drawn attention to the one or two which I feel are quite undesirable. However, having regard to the reality of the situation, this Bill has been through extensive debate and amendment in this House, and I thank the Government for those few but significant amendments which it accepted from this side of the House when it progressed through this debate. The Bill has now been further amended. As I said tonight, at least two of these amendments go a long way towards implementing the amendments I moved. Others have been found necessary because of the overall scrutiny of the Bill. Given that several of the provisions ought not to be in the legislation but that the Government will carry the legislation because of its strength in this House, we will not oppose it. I would like those remarks to stand as an Opposition view. They will stand for the future when we are returned to Government and can amend this Act to remove some of the more undesirable parts of it. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(9.49) —I will make a very brief response to the remarks made by the Opposition. I think I need to pick up just two points, that is, the amendment relating to itinerants and the other amendment on the three-sided voting card. On the matter of the itinerants, it should be pointed out that on the various criteria raised by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), which provide qualifications for a vote as an itinerant, it has to be determined that the applicant does not satisfy either one of those three provisions before a consideration is given to this final one which has been added to them. The question of the closest connection relates really to where the itinerant might more frequently end up when returning to something that remotely resembles a home base, but may not be covered by the other three provisions. One thinks of the instance of an itinerant who is for most of his life a rural road worker-that is the sort of person who is intended to be picked up by this provision-and who, rather than returning to rented accommodation, a home, a member of his family, a spouse or whatever, returns to a particular city. He or she might have a favourite boarding house or hotel when returning to that city. This may in fact vary from time to time, but over a period a pattern may be established which suggests that one boarding house or hotel is the one he or she most frequently goes to. I am advised that that is not an unusual situation. I accept that there is a degree of force in the comments that have been made about the three-sided voting ticket. I reiterate what the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) said. He indicated that if anybody is to be a beneficiary of this, it will not be us. The beneficiaries will be the parties on the other side which, instead of getting 50 per cent of Australian Democrats preferences, may in certain circumstances get 66 2/3 per cent. If we find this to be a serious problem, perhaps we ought to take another look at the propositions. However, the concern of the Government is to get this legislation through and in place. Whatever confusion may be created by this-and I do not think there will be confusion-the people who will not be confused are the electors because this is applicable only to those voters who determine to follow the list system. Those voters following the list system will be handed a three-sided how to vote card as they go into the booth and all they will do when they get into the booth is to put the No. 1 into the column of a particular party and they will have their votes distributed according to that formula. It will not be confusing to them. It will provide hours of enjoyment for the Australian Electoral Office which no doubt will deal with this in the expeditious manner in which it deals with most things. I do not see it as likely to be a very great problem, certainly not for the Opposition. We are prepared to take it on the chin in the interests of getting this Bill through and in place for the very many and valuable provisions it contains. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Mr Speaker has received the following message from His Excellency the Governor-General: In accordance with section 58 of the Constitution the Governor-General returns to the House of Representatives a proposed law intituled Taxation Administration Amendment Act 1983 which has been presented to him for the Queen's assent, and transmits herewith the following amendments that he recommends to be made in the proposed law: (1) Clause 3, page 2, lines 33 and 34, omit 'an offence', insert 'a prescribed offence'. (2) Clause 3, page 3, line 27, omit 'an offence', insert 'a prescribed offence' . Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.55) —I move: That the amendments recommended by His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to. The message received from His Excellency the Governor-General, which was, of course, sent to the House on the advice of the Government, invokes a procedure under section 58 of the Constitution that has not been used often. That section provides, among other things, that, when a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he may return the proposed law to the House in which it originated and may transmit therewith any amendment that he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation. This procedure affords a method of making changes that may be considered desirable in a Bill after it has been passed by both Houses and before it has been assented to. The Governor-General's message on this occasion deals with two changes that are quite minor in nature and which the Government, out of an abundance of caution, considers it desirable to make in the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill 1983 to ensure that a possible unintended construction is not given to the proposed new provisions. The changes consist of the insertion of the word ' prescribed' before the word 'offence' in proposed new sections 11 and 13, which are included in clause 3 of the Bill, and will make it clear that the requirement to notify conviction and to comply with certain procedures before a fine can be enforced will be applicable only where a summons for a tax offence has been served by post in accordance with the proposed new Commonwealth system. The changes will also ensure that the right to apply for a re-hearing will likewise only be available where the new service of summons procedure has been used for tax offences. In summary, it is out of an abundance of caution that the Government decided to recommend to His Excellency the Governor-General to return this Bill to the House before it was given royal assent. The fact is that there may have been in some minds some doubt that the proposed new sections might apply to all taxation offences, whether punishable by imprisonment or a fine and whether or not the summons had been served by post in accordance with section 10, rather than applying to persons convicted of taxation offences for which the only penalty was a fine and where a person was served with a summons by post in accordance with section 10, which was the intended construction. I repeat: Out of that abundance of caution the Governor-General, on the Government's recommendation, decided to bring this matter into the House. I trust that the House will agree. I recommend the amendments to the House. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(9.58) —The Opposition supports the device being recommended. I observe on behalf of the Opposition that those reserve powers come in handy occasionally. Of course, it is a very interesting and novel procedure being used by the Government tonight. It is one of those remarkable things on which great minds must have thought alike. The very concern being voiced tonight by the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) out of an abundance of caution-a very welcome characteristic-was also in the minds of the Opposition. As I think the honourable gentleman knows, my office made contact with the Australian Taxation Office inquiring whether this legislation had the meaning which, out of an abundance of caution, the Government is now ensuring it does not have. I am not suggesting for a moment that our inquiry would have sparked the change now being put forward in this very novel way, but I commend the good sense of the Government. It is something we ought to be cautious about. I know that it was not intended to have the meaning that we were concerned it might have. It is very fortunate that this procedure is available to pull it back, to get it fixed up and to remove the doubt. The Opposition supports very warmly what the Government is doing. Once again I have reason to thank the Minister Assisting the Treasurer for his good sense on one of these measures. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.02) —One of the interesting points about the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1983 is the way in which it adjusts ministerial salaries. It is quite interesting to see that some Ministers are taking a cut in salary while others are going up. Those in the Cabinet are taking some reduction in salary whilst those outside are coming up to a common figure. I suppose that that conjures up a wry smile about how that choice and that decision was made. I notice, however, that the total sum allocated to Ministers of State has increased from $575,000 to $590,000. So whilst the adjustment is not all that expensive in present day monetary terms, nevertheless it is an upward adjustment in the collective total to pay for the wisdom of our respective Ministers. This Bill simply extends the Remuneration Tribunal's decisions to certain areas which are required by the Constitution. The decision of the Tribunal which affects parliamentarians and First, Second and Third Division officers is already in effect. It has been in effect since 6 October. This Bill, in a sense, is a window into the larger movements of the Tribunal itself which are not encompassed in this Bill but which have now been put into effect. However, the Bill is a symbol of the Government's failure to put effectively in position a prices and incomes policy. It is a failure because it is one more example of the Government's advocacy of full indexation of wages from here on. It is an admission that the Government was unable to follow the previous Fraser Government's decision to put into effect a wages pause-which now stands behind the talk of recovery of this economy-and it is an admission of this Government's failure to grasp the opportunity which the previous Government left to it. Accordingly, I give notice, as I have in writing, that I will be moving an amendment to the second reading in the following terms: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the passage of the Bill would represent an example of the failure of the Government's prices and wages policy'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I take it that the honourable gentleman is moving his amendment now? Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Deputy Speaker I am foreshadowing it. The Opposition has consistently argued that full wage indexation will destroy our international competitiveness. I do not think there is much doubt of that because of the Government's own documentation of the economic scene. We have argued that it will ensure that our inflation rate stays high by international standards. That is a position which has been argued at length. We also maintain that it will make it harder for employers to keep their existing staff let alone take on new people and expand industrial and commercial activity. The Government's own analyses of the situation have confirmed that wage indexation will cost jobs. As I have said, this Bill is another example of the Government's determination to proceed with the full wage indexation program. The National Economic Summit Conference, projection A-an extension of the wages pause to April 1984 followed by partial indexation-projected 100,000 more jobs than projection C, which was a three per cent wage increase in late 1983 and then quarterly wage indexation by 1985-86. Budget Papers have indicated that restoration of business profitability is a necessary condition for sustained economic recovery. Recent leaked projections from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet show that the measure of this task is indeed great. The Department projects unemployment of between 11.1 per cent and 13.1 per cent by 1985-86-a truly disastrous projection for the Australian economy, particularly for young people in this community. This projection means that youth unemployment will exceed one in four. Given those figures it is disappointing indeed to find that this Bill proposes to follow through with that general plan. If the Government really believed in jobs and more jobs it would have done everything in its power to achieve projection C of the Summit instead of arguing before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that incapacity to pay was no excuse for payment of less than full indexation. We accept this decision as part of the general economic plan of the Government. But we should not forget that the Government influences the rules of the game. By failing to use its early popularity in office to argue for a lower wage increase it has lost a grand opportunity to attempt to put this economy right. It has missed a wonderful opportunity to make a positive contribution. In regard to the increase in the salaries of members of parliament there was a report, I think in last Friday's Sydney Morning Herald, of the intention of the New South Wales Government, led by Mr Wran, the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, in that State to- Mr Dawkins —Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a fascinating speech but it has precious little to do with the Bill before the House. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quoting from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which is headed 'State MPs to receive 5.5 per cent rise'. If that is not related to the salary rise which we are discussing I would find many other debates in this House quite unrelated. I submit that the Government, by advocating full indexation and supporting an across the board increase of 4.3 per cent in wages and salaries, has so activated the enthusiasm of the Labor Party in New South Wales that it wants more. It is greedy. It does not even fit in with the economic plans- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable gentleman that we are not discussing New South Wales parliamentary salaries. I ask him to endeavour to be more relevant to the BIll before the House. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Deputy Speaker, it certainly is my intention to be relevant. I believe this reflects poorly on the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, and his colleagues. The 4.3 per cent lead which they gave is now spreading around Australia. Even this Government's 4.3 per cent recommendation is being exceeded by its colleagues who have power until the next election in New South Wales. We find salaries and allowances for the judiciary in New South Wales have risen by something close to 8 per cent. There has been double dipping in relation to their own rise, plus the 4.3 per cent which has been calculated on top of that. Not only is it disappointing to find this Bill is the culmination of the Government's policy in parliamentary and public service terms of extending the 4.3 per cent, but also it is an example-if one takes into account the New South Wales scene-of how Australia is simply not responding to the Government's 4.3 per cent call. If one looked at industry and commerce or some self-interested group and said 'They are not responding', perhaps this Government might move in and be critical of them. But when it is one of the Government's own which moves outside that guidelines, heaven help Australia when the Government is led by the President of the Australian Labor Party. It is with a great deal of disappointment that I move my amendment. I would have hoped that at this stage when we are considering a new increase, an additional increase or consideration of an increase for members of parliament we would be considering it in the light of the previous Fraser Government's wage pause. That is not the case. Members opposite may laugh and rant but they will know that this is a public declaration to Australia that we will not discipline wages in this country and that we will choose further unemployment rather than a moderate increase for the entire community. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the passage of the Bill would represent an example of the failure of the Government's prices and wages policy'. My words on this matter were necessary to sustain the amendment which I hope this House will carry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Spender —Yes, I second the amendment. It is generally supported. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.12) —I want to speak about the fact that the Parliament, as a result of legislation introduced by the Australian Labor Party, is ostensibly being increased by some 35 members. When we multiply the $40,000 plus salary which has been set by the Remuneration Tribunal by- Mr Beazley —I raise a point of order. There is absolutely no relevance to the Bill. This Bill is not about parliamentary salaries, it is about the salaries of Ministers and judges. Parliamentary salaries are automatically adjusted by the regulations that exist in relation to the Remuneration Tribunal, if the Government accepts it. It is quite out of order. Mr Steele Hall —Could I speak to that point of order? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —No. To the extent that the honourable member for Moreton will become relevant, if he is not already relevant, I will allow him to continue. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The facts are that the pool of 35 extra politicians which the Government is endeavouring to create, which is supported by only nine per cent of the Australian population, is seen by the Government as a means of enlarging the Ministry. That is where it is relevant. The point I make is that when we look at the move by the Government to enlarge the Ministry and the cost, if we multiply the $40,000 basic salary for a member of Parliament by 35 new members we are talking of many millions of dollars. As the years pass this will grow. I want to register one complaint. On returning to this Parliament I find that Ministers and even ordinary members of parliament are not so well equipped or so well situated in terms of efficiency, and will not be, despite the huge expenditure which is involved with this Bill, as even middle management. My office is some 500 feet from the nearest typist in the building. Ministers, who are on bigger salaries than I am, are also in that area of the Parliament. It is absolutely ludicrous that this Government will go ahead and increase this Parliament and this House by some two dozen members of the House of Representatives and another dozen or so senators. When one takes into account the cost of the Federal Government is imposing on the Australian taxpayer as a result of this increase in the Parliament it is little short of scandalous. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) mentioned the application of the 4.3 per cent salary adjustment and the larger increment which had been added in New South Wales by the New South Wales Government, led by the Premier of that State, who is also the President of the Australian Labor Party. I have been on the phone tonight talking to a couple of businessmen north of Sydney. They have told me that all over New South Wales small business is going to the wall. One of the reasons they are putting off staff is the recent increase in wages and the way this is being passed on by the New South Wales Labor Government. I contest the wisdom of a Labor State such as New South Wales so blatantly disregarding the wages freeze which has been set in place by the former Federal Government. This is causing an upward spiralling of wages once again and many jobs will be lost. It is obvious that the Labor Government in this place is seeing an increase in the size of the Parliament as a way of absorbing unemployment. Mr Cunningham —I raise a further point of order. The honourable member is not addressing himself to the measures before the House. He is dealing with the New South Wales Government. The legislation before the House deals with Ministers' salaries. The honourable member is totally out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the House and the honourable member that the honourable member for Moreton is speaking to an amendment which includes reference to the measure being an example of the failure of the Government's prices and wages policy. To that extent I think he is relevant. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can understand the honourable member feeling uncomfortable as he has to sit there and listen to some truths. I do not know how long it will be before this Federal Government loses its direction in terms of its wages policy. In conclusion, I have referred to the huge increase which has been brought about in the size of the Parliament. The Labor Party is hoping to enlarge the Ministry. When we start multiplying a ministerial salary by the new rates which are being set, it is almost mind boggling, particularly when compared with the plight of these unemployed. I make the prediction now that, much as the Government tries to give an impression of confidence in the community, which is understandable, I believe that in the weeks ahead we will see that unemployment in Australia is on the increase and escalating and that the actions of a New South Wales Labor government will, in no small measure, contribute. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.18) —Mr Deputy Speaker, further to your ruling on the amendment, I would also think, as the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) has said, that because, as I understand it, parliamentary salaries flow from the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill, although it is not directly relevant -- Mr Ruddock —It is the result of the Remuneration Tribunal decision. Mr Beazley —And the Government's acceptance of it. Mr WHITE —In view of that, what I have to say, I believe, is entirely relevant. This wage rise is a result of the national wage case. The Minister, in his second reading speech states: The Commission enunciated principles of wage determination which provide for a 4.3 per cent national wage adjustment and, in the future, the adjustment of wages on a six-monthly basis in line with movements in the consumer price index, unless the Commission is persuaded to the contrary. I and other speakers on this side of the House take issue with what amounts to full support by the Government for full indexation both now and in the future. The reality is that if the Government does not support full wage indexation we will be faced with the busting of the prices and incomes accord and industrial chaos. But if it does continue to support full wage indexation, it means that we will, quite obviously, have inflation in the months and years to come. As far as parliamentary salaries are concerned, I appreciate as much as anyone else the necessity to pay members of parliament properly. It is important that an adequate salary be paid to attract competent people to this place. There is no surer way in the long term to destroy the parliamentary process than by failing properly to pay members of parliament. If general wage levels rise throughout the community MPs should not fall behind, nor should anyone else for that matter. The fact is that the 4.3 per cent increase we are debating tonight is unjustified in terms of the general wage level in this country. It has come about because of the Government's support for full indexation in the recently completed national wage case. We have only to see what the economic predictions leaked from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the last week show for the future in terms of wage levels and inflation. I mention briefly a couple of other things. Firstly, I congratulate the Government on the measure it introduced earlier this year to eliminate what is known as the merry widow clause from the parliamentary remuneration package. I, and I hope most other members, believe that while it has existed for some time in that package it is totally unjustified. I am particularly glad to see that if a member takes commutation-although that has been amended also to some extent- his widow is not entitled to double dip into the system. Secondly, I think we must try in the future to get some relativity between wages and the superannuation package received by members of parliament. I believe it is very important to get this right because the reality is that the superannuation of public servants and parliamentarians in this country is becoming an affront to the majority of Australians. Mr Donald Cameron —The Army pension as well. Mr WHITE —One of my colleagues mentions that I get an Army pension. That is no secret, and many other people get other remuneration. I am talking about the great bulk accruing to people who leave the Public Service after a number of years of service and to members of parliament. Whether we recognise it or not, it is becoming an affront to most people in this country. I strongly advocate that as this sum continues to rise we get some balance between a higher salary, which is necessary in my view to attract competent people to this place, and reduced superannuation benefits. Mr Hollis —You can always refuse it. Mr WHITE —Some of us might not last long enough to get it. In regard to another remuneration matter, I suggest also that it is time we looked at the salaries of shadow Ministers in this parliament. Shadow Ministers in many ways work just as hard as Ministers. Certainly they do not have the same responsibility, but they work very hard. Again, if we are to attract competent people to this place and encourage them to stay on through a sometimes long period in opposition- in the case of the Australian Labor Party a very long time-there is a logical case for paying shadow Ministers an appropriate salary. I hope that the Government will address itself to that matter. Others have mentioned what has happened in New South Wales in the past week. It is no use saying, as the Government is saying, that that is a matter for New South Wales. The Premier of New South Wales is the President of the Australian Labor Party. I would have thought that, as Premier and President, it was up to him to set an example for this country in wage restraint. Why should members of the New South Wales Parliament set a standard which is not achievable by other workers in this country under the wages accord? This is encouraging renegade unions such as the Builders Labourers Federation in their excessive demands. We have seen that in the past. Of course, a 5.5 per cent increase in the salaries of New South Wales parliamentarians will only encourage such unions further. I was very pleased to see that today the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), with some embarrassment, condemned members of the New South Wales Parliament for voting that increase for themselves. I put this final point to the Government: There exists in the present provision for superannuation for Federal members of parliament an opportunity for people who come from State parliaments to pay into the Federal scheme the amount they were paid out when they left the State parliament. It could be said that there is some logic in that, that a person who goes from one parliament to another should not be disadvantaged. The point is that a person can come into place as I did and be offered an opportunity to buy back three years service for some $9, 000. If I had come from business and had availed myself of the opportunity through the same superannuation scheme to buy back those three years it would have cost like something like three times as much. I ask the Government and this Parliament: Is it right that a person coming from State parliament has such a considerable advantage over someone who comes to this Parliament from the business community? I suggest to the House that it is totally wrong. This is another matter that I ask the Government to look at seriously. In summary, I again make the point that we are debating this Bill tonight because of the full wage indexation decision handed down in the national wage case, resulting from the Government's full support for indexation. That decision will lead to massive trouble in the future. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State)(10.27) —Needless to say, the Government opposes the amendment. I will take on board some of the points made by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who has just spoken, when I discuss matters with the Remuneration Tribunal. Some of his contribution, in contrast to that of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), was worth listening to. At least the remarks of the honourable member for McPherson had some relationship to the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill and the amendment before the House. I remind honourable gentlemen that it was pointed out also by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) this morning we had effectively, in agreeing to the rises that went through, forsworn some 7 per cent that might have been negotiated within the guidelines of the Remuneration Tribunal, that amount having been set aside for members of parliament, with a flow-on to Ministers. This represents a very substantial statement by the Government of its intention to adhere to the guidelines of the wages policy it is laying down. That wages policy, as has been argued on this side of the House, is central to the economic recovery of this nation and ought to draw support from all sides of the House in encouragement of its success, as we will all be so dependent upon that success in the near future. For those reasons the amendment is not acceptable and will be opposed by the Government. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Steele Hall's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johnson, LesBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Jones, Barry Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Mr SPEAKER —Order! 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. Original 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 Beazley) read a third time. Imported Grain Harvesters-Mr F. X. Costigan, QC-Dairying and Fishing Industries- Broadcasting of Adjournment Debates Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.38) —It is about time the Government cleared up once and for all the question of the 15 per cent tariff on imported grain harvesters. This issue has been burning along for four months now. It is causing grave concern throughout the entire grains industry. I want to support the remarks of my colleague the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) in this Parliament a few weeks ago. The wheat industry is seeing its returns being drastically reduced each day through weather damage. Already losses due to downgrading of wheat have hit many farmers very hard indeed-up to a dockage of $ 20 a tonne. It is reliably estimated that the overall average loss in the Australian wheat industry could be $4 a tonne or a mammoth $80m to the industry. I specifically raise the issue this evening because of a report in today's Australian Financial Review newspaper which said that the Industries Assistance Commission had rejected industry objections to its recommendation that a 15 per cent tariff should be imposed on imported harvesters. That in itself is not surprising. One would hardly expect the Commission effectively to reject and overrule its own final recommendations, especially as they were accepted by the Government and announced on 5 August. It was ridiculous that the Government should have referred industry submissions on its 5 August announcement back to the IAC in the first place. The onus of reversing this decision rests fairly and squarely with the Government. It always has. The so-called reference of industry criticism to the IAC for comment was nothing more than a stalling tactic by the Government because it knew full well that it blundered in its original decision. It is now trying to work out how to recover ground. The fact is that it cannot recover ground. It should just admit that it made a mistake and change its decision. Now that the charade of further reference to the IAC apparently is over, there is no excuse for not doing this without delay. The IAC is standing by its original recommendations. The Government knows industry views. Indeed, I understand that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) himself is sympathetic to them. There is no excuse for not changing the decision forthwith. Furthermore, the Government itself has supported as a general policy assistance by way of bounty rather than tariff. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said in a Press statement on the steel industry plan on 11 August 1983: The needs of those downstream users were very much in the Government's mind in deciding to introduce an assistance package based on bounties . . . Again, in the second reading speech of the Min- ister for Communications and Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Duffy) on the Steel Industry Authority Bill made in this place only last week the Government said: Bounty assistance has the advantage over alternative assistance measures such as tariff quotas, as it avoids an adverse price impact in downstream user industries. Similar approaches are contained in the prices and incomes accord document and in a speech made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in Brisbane on 27 October titled 'Business and the Commonwealth Budget-Labor's Approach'. There are stacks of examples. So why is the grains industry singled out for different treatment? It is because Labor does not understand the grains industry, or any primary industry, and it does not care. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is supposed to be the great white knight. He is in Cabinet now. But what has he done about this issue? As always, he has done nothing. He said a few placating words and washed his hands of all responsibility. If he were any sort of Minister at all he would be insisting that Cabinet toss out the original decision, but he is not. He is a total failure. Certainly the grains industry has had enough. If there is a need for protection, let it be by bounty, estimated by industry and IAC to require $2m from public revenue and not a $14m extra cost to Australian farmers through tariffs. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(10.43) —I raise the question of a particular royal commissioner, since we are into royal commissions today. Generally we seem to be heading for a royal commission-led recovery, certainly a lawyer-led recovery. I received an answer to a question I had had on the Notice Paper for some time. It is recorded at page 3121 of the House of Representatives Hansard for 30 November . Inter alia it states that Mr F. X. Costigan, QC, so far has received some $1, 003,750 in fees. Mr Hicks —How much? Dr KLUGMAN —He has received $1,003,750. By the end of December he will have received another $97,500. The fees are being paid at the rate of some $9,000 or $10,000 a week. Maybe paying that money to him is worth while, but let me raise a couple of points. Let us look at the sort of work that royal commissioners do. Royal Commissioner Costigan has a huge number of assistants. His Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union has been going for nearly three years. He has a very large staff. After looking at evidence for some two years he presented his report No. 4 on the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. He was dealing with the matter of a chap called Bercove, who was in the Crown Solicitor's Office in Perth. After some two years and with a staff of over 70-I emphasise this-Mr Costigan, in his report to this Parliament, said: According to Mr Gleedman, Mr Bercove placed the telephone number of the Perth Office of the Crown Solicitor in the advertisements for the business. The Commissioner is now talking about an escort service which Mrs Bercove was allegedly running. The report continued: Mr Bercove denied this, and I have at this stage no other hard evidence on this matter, but as between him and Mr Gleedman, I find Mr Gleedman, the far more credible witness. I put this proposition to honourable members: In the case of a royal commissioner who has been conducting an investigation for two years and has had a staff of some 70 people, one would at least have expected him to decide whether the advertisement was placed. He takes Gleedman's evidence as being the more correct. But some 20 pages earlier in his interim report he states that Mr Gleedman was suffering from hyperthalmic depression-which by the way does not exist-as he had done for many years in the past, and he had been retired from the Public Service. On page 44 of the interim report, again speaking about Gleedman, Mr Costigan states: At that time Mr Gleedman prepared draft instructions to counsel to settle the criminal charges and advice on evidence. It is a tortuous and confused document. I find it difficult to understand how Mr Gleedman was in so much error at this time, lest it be the illness from which he was suffering. Yet the Commissioner relied on that person's evidence. That is not the only place where the Commissioner was wrong. Two weeks after the report was tabled, a statement was made by Huw Evans on PM. He said: . . . Mr Frank Costigan late this afternoon sent a telexted Press statement to all Australian media organisations admitting that volume one of his Report contained a significant number of errors. I quote from the telex: ''In paragraph 17, page 116 the Report stated 'Shortly afterwards Harding was murdered by Taylor and subsequently Taylor was convicted of that murder. Thus Taylor had committed by that time some two murders in the space of three years, notwithstanding that at the time of the second murder he was in prison.' In fact Mr Taylor was acquitted of this murder, not convicted. The Commission sincerely regrets this error and trusts that its correction will receive as much publicity as the original mistake.'' He then goes on to say that as a result the Commission had reviewed the Chapter to ensure that if there were any other mistakes, they could be corrected immediately. Unfortunately, says Mr Costigan, a number of mis-statements had been discovered. I quote again: ''In paragraph 5. 13, it is stated that Maloney was murdered by O'Driscoll. The name should be Driscoll, not O'Driscoll. It is true that Driscoll was convicted of this murder, however, the conviction was upset on appeal and he was acquitted on his new trial. In paragraph 5.20, it is stated that Raymond Kane was murdered. Is was in fact his brother Leslie Kane. In paragraph 5.21, it is stated that Bennett when murdered was at the City Court on committal proceedings- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.48) —I wish to speak of two matters of specific concern to primary industry and to the people of Gippsland. They relate to the dairy and fishing industries. The dairy industry is up in arms because the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has, for the second time, knocked back a recommendation from the Australian Dairy Corporation for a 10 per cent increase in the domestic market price. The industry has estimated that this decision will mean a loss of revenue of more than $20m in 1983-84. I emphasise that amount-$20m. The Minister has tried feebly to justify his decision on the grounds that the increase could lead to greater milk production at a time of low international prices. I do not accept that argument for one moment; neither does the dairy industry. Mr Cunningham —You ought to ask them. Mr McGAURAN —Does the honourable member from McMillan accept that argument? Mr Cunningham —Too right. Mr McGAURAN —He does accept it. Let Hansard record that he does. It will be of great interest to the dairy industry and to the members of his electorate which, prior to his election, was a very fine dairy producing area. In fact, the Minister could very easily cause increased production by not allowing the increase recommended by the Corporation. Dairy farmers may now very well have to milk more cows to maintain their income, hence increasing overall production. Mr Hand —They have never had it so good. Mr McGAURAN —My attention has been drawn to the interjection of the honourable member for Melbourne that farmers have never had it so good. I simply say that that is sheer and absolute disregard of the financial plight of dairy farmers throughout this country, dairy farmers suffering under the mini-Budget of 19 May and the Budget of 23 August. Measures were taken in those Budgets which unhesitatingly discriminated against rural producers of this country, and each and every Government member ought to be ashamed of his disregard of the primary producers of this country. They have always hated the farmers. They hate the farmers because the farmers represent the true spirit of the Australian character-the spirit of entrepreneurism, the spirit of endeavour, the spirit of exploraton. They are men who take risks. They are the salt of the earth. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I have never heard such farmyard noises. Mr McGAURAN —Your comment is totally appropriate, Mr Speaker. It is because the Australian farmer represents the true Australian spirit, the true Australian character, that these men opposite are resentful and dislike and distrust the Australian farmer. In regard to the fishing industry, I invite all Government members, including the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe), to examine an advertisement which appeared in the Australian newspaper on 2 November. It was signed by no less than eight fishing organisations and accused this Government of selling the fishing industry down the drain, and they are their words. What greater indictment of government administration could we possibly get than that? It was a full page advertisement co-sponsored by no less than eight fishing organisations including the Victorian Professional Fishermen's Association. The simple fact is that the Labor Government is sending the fishing industry right up to northern Australia to the wall. This industry relies on diesel fuel more than any other industry; yet this Government has increased the fuel excise every six months. By so doing it will cost the fishing industry $3m this year alone. Do Government members care at all about the plight of fishermen-fishermen from Lake's Entrance to northern Australia? I do not think there is any doubt that they do not care in the slightest. Labor came to office with a ream of promises, as always, for the fishing industry. It has not implemented any worthwhile policies for the industry. The Government seems to have no knowledge at all of the fact that the fishing industry is one of the nation's most fuel intensive industries. Increased diesel prices will cost the industry at least $3m this year. This Government is destroying the Australian fishing industry, a major industry that earns some $360m in export income. Mr Cadman —Why do they hate the fishermen? Mr McGAURAN —This Government hates the fishermen because they have many things in common with Australian farmers-they represent the best things about the Australian character, things that are anathema to socialist beliefs. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(10.53) —We have just witnessed a palpable absurdity, and I am not referring to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). It is an absurdity which we see every day, though it was particularly acute tonight. If we look around the walls of this chamber we will see that the broadcasting lights are off. Just before those lights went out the people of Australia were treated to the edifying audio but not visual experience of a division. This added nothing to the quality of their lives whereas it is just vaguely possible that this adjournment debate might do. I am referring to the fact that adjournment debates of this House are not broadcast. There are many good reasons why adjournment debates should be broadcast. Many of the speeches are fiery. Even if sometimes interlarded with animal noises such as those that issued from the honourable member for Gippsland and his colleagues , they nevertheless have a spirit of fire and an element of interest which would make good listening for many people. Additionally, speeches on adjournment debates are short and, being short, they do not exceed the concentration span of many of those who listen to the proceedings of this House, not so much to gain erudition as to receive entertainment. I might add that since they are short they do not exceed the concentration span of honourable members opposite who are delivering them either. That might be a bit subtle for honourable members opposite, but they will get it if they read Hansard. The adjournment debate also provides an opportunity for back benchers to speak about what concerns them and what concerns their constituents. Yet at this very time, when they are trying to talk to their constituents, they are silenced, precisely when they most want their constitutents to hear them. Additionally, it is an opportunity for individuals and groups to hear their interests mentioned specifically, in a forum which has to occupy itself mainly with issues of generality. Honourable members opposite from Tasmania were just interjecting. They manage to bring their own particular concerns into almost every debate, but others of us like to confine remarks concerning our own constituencies to adjournment debates and other appropriate fora. For that reason, it would be very appropriate if our constituents could hear us. On these occasions the Joint Committee on Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings has considered this matter; once in 1950, once in 1970 and once in 1978. It is considering it again now in 1983 and will do so in 1984. In 1950 and 1970 the Committee decided against change but in 1978 decided in favour of it. Nevertheless, perhaps as a result of something that happened in the Government Caucus room afterwards, the recommendation of the Committee, that we should broadcast adjournment debates, was not adopted. The only reasons that can be discerned from anywhere as to why this recommendation should not have been adopted, are contained in a remark of a former Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, who said: . . . many of the speeches made on that motion- he was referring to the adjournment motion- relate to one electorate only and come on at a very late hour. Let us divide up that statement and consider it. The statement that many of the speeches made on the adjournment relate to one electorate only is false, irrelevant and does not represent a significant difference. First, it is false because most issues of local interest are connected with national issues also. For example, in my own electorate of Petrie the main issues are interest rates, pensions and employment. These, when referred to in debates on the issues regarding Petrie, would have ramifications regarding the national scene as well. The objection raised is not significant because the electorate has a legitimate concern with human interest stories. The media is full of them and the best way to get political issues across-I do not want to give any information away to Opposition members even though they might not understand it-to the electorate is to provide examples. Many of the Bills that come before this place affect only a small group. Many of the Bills that come forward in General Business in this place affect only a small group. So what if the interests of only a small group are mentioned in an adjournment debate? That does not distinguish it from any other debate. Finally, as to Mr Holt's remark that the adjournment debates come on at a very late hour I say that the debates do not come on as late as they used to. Secondly, habits of life are changing. More people are staying up later, more people are on flexitime, staggered hours and so forth. Fewer are working the hours that, in a manufacturing economy, were then customary. Times have changed and with them this Parliament should change also and broadcast its adjournment proceedings. I call upon honourable members on both sides to support that initiative. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. Mr West to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, and for related purposes. Mr Beazley to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951. Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Security Act 1947 and the Repatriation Act 1920 and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for reconsideration and report, namely: Redevelopment of the Royal Military College Duntroon, Canberra, A.C.T. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament-Australian Wheat Board Accommodation at Ceres House, 528 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, for Head Office and Victorian Branch. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament-Construction of accommodation for the National Institute of Dramatic Art, Kensington, N.S.W. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 6 December 1983. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 284 Apply and Pear Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 287 Apple and Pear Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 288 Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 274 Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 296 Copyright Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 293 Defence Act- Determinations-1983- No. 26-Bounty payable to Members of the Emergency Reserve No. 27-Uniform Maintenance Allowance No. 28-Special Action Forces and other Allowance Regulations-Statutory Rules-1983, Nos. 281, 289 Defence Amendment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 290, 291 Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 294 Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 280 Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 285 Lands Acquisition Act-Lands acquired for telecommunications services purposes- Walcha, N.S.W. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 292 Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 282, 283 Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 286 Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing dates on which Acts or parts of Acts shall come into operation-Ombudsman Amendment Act 1981-Section 3 sub-section 4 (2) and sections 6, 20, 21 and 30, 5 December 1983 Public Service Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 295 Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance-1983-No. 57-City Area Leases (Amendment) No. 2) The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 108 Mr Bilney asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1983: Is any financial support given to persons emigrating to Australia as refugees following their arrival in Australia; if so, (a) what are the details and (b)is the amount of financial support the same for refugees of all ethnic groups; if not (i) why not and (ii) what are the details of any differences. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Refugees receive a range of assistance including some financial support from the Department of Social Security and my Department to assist their re- settlement in Australia. (a) All refugees are eligible for the full range of pensions, benefits and allowances from the Department of Social Security on the same basis as any other resident of Australia, although part of an unemployment, sickness or special benefit payable to a refugee residing in a Commonwealth accommodation centre may be paid to the centre to cover the cost of accommodation. Refugees who do not immediately qualify for a statutory pension or benefit under the Social Security Act may be paid a special benefit. Special benefit is payable at the discretion of the Director-General of Social Security to a person who is not eligible for any other pension or benefit and is unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for himself and his dependants, if any. Normally, in recognition of the particular circumstances applying to newly arrived refugees, special benefit is paid for the four weeks from date of arrival in Australia. This benefit is paid at a rate equivalent to the appropriate rate of unemployment benefit. At the end of the four week period, the refugee is usually transferred to unemployment benefit but special benefit may be continued where appropriate. English language courses are provided for non-English speaking migrants and refugees on arrival in Australia. Many of those attending classes are entitled to an education living allowance equivalent to, and replacing, unemployment benefit. The community refugee settlement scheme (CRSS) provides an alternative to accommodating newly arrived refugees in migrant centres. Under CRSS, refugees are moved directly into the community where they are assisted by the individuals , groups and organisations who have volunteered to provide a range of support and assistance. Sponsor groups receive a grant from Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for second and subsequent sponsorships. The clothing reimbursement scheme is administered by voluntary agencies, which may apply for reimbursement of up to $50 in respect of each person assisted. Refugees are entitled to assistance under the scheme if they are in need of clothing and personal requisites upon arrival in Australia. The Committee for Allocation of Loans for Refugees in Centres (CALFRIC) administers a revolving interest free loan scheme, repayable over two years, which assist refugees to move from the migrant centres into outside accommodation as soon as possible. A loan of up to $600 may be provided to a couple with children; up to $250 for a couple without children and up to $100 for a single person. Adults responsible for the care and maintenance of refugee children without parents in Australia are entitled to family allowance and may also be eligible for double orphan's pension. Both benefits are paid by the Department of Social Security. Certain refugee children without parents or close adult relatives in Australia, who have become wards of the Minister under the Immigration ( Guardianship of Children) Act receive a maintenance allowance from Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This is paid at a rate of $45 per week for those living independently or in institutional care and $30 per week for those living with a caregiver. (b) (i-ii) The criteria on which financial assistance is granted are the same for all refugees, regardless of country of origin or ethnic background. Question No. 111 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 May 1983: Can he indicate how many persons are estimated to be employed (a) at Kingsford- Smith Airport, New South Wales and (b) in industries connected with, and in the vicinity of, the airport. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) A total of 13,512 people were employed at the airport as at 30 September 1981. I do not expect that a recent survey of airport employees, carried out by a consultant and yet to be supplied to the Department, will disclose any significant change from the 1981 figure. The total of 13,512 included: International airlines (excluding Qantas) 178 Qantas 8,466 Ansett Airlines of Australia 1,137 Trans Australia Airlines 876 Air New South Wales 200 East West Airlines 203 Department of Aviation 825 Department of Business and Consumer Affairs-Customs 328 Other Commonwealth Departments, etc. 321 Miscellaneous (including oil companies) 978 TOTAL 13,512 (b) Based on a recent check of direct employment, by my Department, a total of about 1,200 people are employed in industries connected with, and in the vicinity of, the airport. All but a few are employed by freight forwarders, customs agents and freight couriers. In addition, there would be a smaller number who are indirectly employed in the vicinity of the airport by virtue of the airport's existence and tourism. For example, small contractors and service industries would gain work from the airport and the Sydney Airport Hilton Hotel is established next to the airport to service the public travelling through the airport. In 1978, as part of the Major Airport Needs of Sydney study, a survey was carried out by a consultant to identify, amongst other things, the nature of the firms highly linked with the airport-airline industry and the nature of those linkages. A total of 130 firms-(based on advice from Qantas, Pan-Am, TAA and Ansett-were identified as being firms directly associated with the airline operations of Kingsford-Smith Airport and supplying greater than $50,000 worth of goods and services to the airlines. The survey population included firms supplying catering, fuel, parts and maintenance, as well as freight forwarders and couriers and excluded firms associated purely with airport terminal operations such as the shops and the catering facilities which service this area . Of the 130 firms, 40 were selected as a sample and classified into four industry groups as follows: * Fuel suppliers * Freight and cargo handlers * Caterers * Miscellaneous The fourth category comprised suppliers of technical equipment to airlines as well as cleaning, transport, and securities services. Of the forty firms approached in the industry survey, 26 firms responded by completing the questionnaire provided at meetings with the firms. The following information was compiled from the completed questionnaires and relates to 26 of the 130 firms identified. Airport Number of related Total Category firms employees employees Fuel suppliers 1 34 Not supplied Freight 10 867 1,233 Catering 5 41 353 Miscellaneous 10 263 4,784 Totals 26 1,205 - The following information gives an indication of the economic and spatial linkages between the industries and airport, as abstracted from the consultant report. Fuel Category The airport component of the firm's production represents only about 6 per cent of the total value of production of the firm. The firm operates a head office in the city, a refinery at Kurnell and three terminals including one at the airport. Freight and Cargo Handlers Category Of the four industry categories in the survey, the freight and cargo industrial category is the most highly and specifically linked with the airport. Spatial linkages are also extremely evident in that all 10 firms were located at Mascot, though several had other city and suburban branches. Of the 10 firms, six were involved exclusively in airfreight. Four of the sample were involved primarily in international airfreight, with little or no emphasis on the domestic market. Catering Category On the economic and spatial criteria, the linkages between the airport-airline and catering industries are less well defined. The percentage value of total production related to the airline industry for the sample firms ranged from 4 to 20 per cent. Nor are inter-industry linkages between catering firms and the airport important from a spatial perspective. The catering firms are located in both inner and outer suburban areas. In no case was any firm located in close proximity to the airport. Miscellaneous Category Similar results were obtained for the miscellaneous industry category as for the catering category. The stated economic linkages were extremely disparate, with one firm claiming 100 per cent airport related, three more than 50 per cent and the remainder less than 5 per cent. Spatial linkages in this category were also tenuous with only one of the 10 firms located at Mascot. Question No. 141 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: (1) Does this week mark the first Public Broadcasting Week in Australia. (2) Will he outline (a) what the Government perceives to be the role of public broadcasting in Australia and (b) the initiatives the Government intends to take with regard to public broadcasting. (3) Will another public broadcasting licence be issued in Perth for the establishment of an ethnic radio station. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The first Public Broadcasting Week was held from 8 to 11 May 1983, commemorating ten years of public broadcasting in Australia. (2) (a) The Government recognises the importance of the public broadcasting sector in the Australian broadcasting system. The development of public broadcasting has resulted in a significant diversification of control of the airwaves. Meanwhile the local nature of programming and the access offered by many stations, enables individuals and special interest groups to participate in broadcasting and to listen to programs of direct relevance to them. (b) The Government is committed to the continued expansion of the sector within an orderly planning framework, subject of course to the availability of frequencies and planning capacity. Development of low coverage community licences like those issued recently in Sydney is the Government's major priority in metropolitan areas, along with the establishment of community stations in unserved country areas. There is also growing interest in establishing a second station in some country areas to met the needs of special interest groups. In relation to funding, the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia is in the process of establishing the Public Broadcasting Foundation, with the objective of raising funds from public and private sector sources to assist stations and prospective licensees. As announced in the 1983-84 Budget the Government is providing $100,000 to the PBAA to examine the feasibility of raising funds in this way. In addition, the Foundation will be making recommendations to me on the disbursement of the $200,000 which has been made available by the Government in 1983-84 for grants to public broadcasters. (3) Several groups have registered interest in applying for a third public broadcasting licence in Perth, and my Department will be carrying out detailed assessment of these proposals in 1984-85. In the event that applications are invited, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will select the most suitable applicant after holding a public inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. Question No. 150 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) How many Vietnamese refugees are living in the electoral division of Perth. (2) What level of assistance has been granted to these refugees since their arrival. (3) Can he indicate how many refugees are currently receiving (a) unemployment, (b) sickness, (c) special and (d) supporting benefits. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The most recent reliable figures are based on the June 1981 Census. It shows 1315 Vietnamese-born persons in the Perth electoral division. The majority of these would have arrived in Australia as refugees. (2) All refugees including those from Vietnam are eligible for the full range of pensions, benefits and allowance from the Department of Social Security on the same basis as any other resident of Australia, although part of an unemployment, sickness or special benefit payable to a refugee residing in a Commonwealth accommodation centre may be paid to the centre to cover the cost of accommodation. Refugees who do not immediately qualify for a statutory pension or benefit under the Social Security Act may be paid a special benefit. Special benefit is payable at the discretion of the Director-General of Social Security to a person who is not eligible for any other pension or benefit and is unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for himself and his dependants, if any. Normally, in recognition of the particular circumstances applying to newly arrived refugees, special benefit is paid for the four weeks from date of arrival in Australia. This benefit is paid at a rate equivalent to the appropriate rate of unemployment benefit. At the end of the four week period, the refugee is usually transferred to unemployment benefit but special benefit may be continued where appropriate. English language courses are provided for non-English speaking migrants and refugees on arrival in Australia. Many of those attending classes are entitled to an education living allowance equivalent to, and replacing, Unemployment Benefit. The community refugee settlement scheme (CRSS) provides an alternative to accommodating newly arrived refugees in Migrant Centres. Under CRSS, refugees are moved directly into the community where they are assisted by the individuals , groups and organisations who have volunteered to provide a range of support and assistance. Sponsor groups receive a grant from Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for second and subsequent sponsorships. The clothing reimbursement scheme is administered by voluntary agencies, which may apply for reimbursement of up to $50 in respect of each person assisted. Refugees are entitled to assistance under the scheme if they are in need of clothing and personal requisites upon arrival in Australia. The Committee for Allocation of Loans for Refugees in Centres (CALFRIC) administers a revolving interest free loan scheme, repayable over 2 year, which assists refugees to move from the migrant centres into outside accommodaton as soon as possible. A loan of up to $600 may be provided to a couple with children ; up to $250 for a couple without children and up to $100 for a single person. Adults responsible for the care and maintenance of refugee children without parents in Australia are entitled to family allowance and may also be eligible for double orphan's pension. Both benefits are paid by the Department of Social Security. Certain refugee children without parents or close adult relatives in Australia, who have become Wards of the Minister under the Immigration ( Guardianship of Children) Act receive a maintenance allowance from Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This is paid at a rate of $45 per week for those living independently or in institutional care and $30 per week for those living with a caregiver. The Perth Office of Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs employs a Vietnamese welfare worker and provides other services including the Telephone Interpreter Service (TIS) and an information centre with bilingual information officers. Other agencies which are funded by Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and provide services to Vietnamese and all other migrants include Perth Asian Community Centre, North Perth Migrant Resource Centre and Centrecare . In addition, the Free Vietnamese Fraternity Association of Western Australia has recently received a Grant-in-Aid to employ a welfare worker. (3) The Department of Social Security advises that this information is not available. Question No. 274 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the practice which is not uncommon in the international film industry called 'receiving backhanders' which reportedly consists of film purchasers receiving a payment from film distributors as an incentive? (2) If so, has he any indication of Australian film purchasers being involved in a practice of this kind? Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. Question No. 347 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Finance upon notice, on 23 August 1983 : Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Number of Claims and (b) number settled-number outstanding. 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total Total 1 . . . . 2 6 15 24 Settled 1 . . . . 2 6 2 11 Outstanding . . . . . . . . . . 13 13 Of the 13 claims listed as outstanding for 1983, 11 are in the process of determination by a delegate of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. The remaining two claims have been submitted to the Department's regional offices but have not yet been forwarded to the delegate for consideration and determination. (c) All claims were submitted by female staff. (d) One claim in 1981 was the result of a clerical assistant performing repetitive duties involving the movement of office files. All other claims were from keyboard staff, i.e. 22 data processing operators and one typist. Question No. 369 Mr Leo McLeay asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What commissions of inquiry or royal commissions are presently conducting inquiries on behalf of the Commonwealth. (2) What are the names and titles of the members of these commissions and those assisting the commissions who are not members of the Commonwealth or State Public Service. (3) How long has each inquiry been running. (4) What (a) remuneration is being paid on a (i) daily basis or (ii) annual basis, where applicable, (b) is the total remuneration paid to date and (c) support staff is provided to each commission and what would be their equivalent Public Service classification. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following information is in respect of royal commissions and those committees of inquiry which are serviced by my Department, and is correct as at 30 August 1983: (1) Royal commissions and committees of inquiry presently conducting inquiries on behalf of the Commonwealth are: (a) Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs; (b) Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories; (c) Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group; (d) Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies; (e) Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union; and (f) Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents and Australian Personnel in Vietnam. A. (2) Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs -Names and Titles of Members etc. The Hon. Dr Moss Cass (Chairperson) Ms E. Cox Professor D. L. Jayasuriya Mr A. Matheson (3) Length of Inquiry-Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was appointed on 24 July 1983. (4) Remuneration and Support Staff (a) (i) Chairperson $205 per day; Member $170 per day. (ii) not applicable (b) Total Remuneration-No claims for remuneration had been received to 31 August 1983. (c) Support Staff-1 x Secretary (2nd Division, Level 1); 2 x Clerk, Class 11; 1 x Clerk, Class 10; 1 x Journalist, Grade A1; 3 x Clerk, Class 8; 1 x Clerk, Class 7; 1 x Clerk, Class 4; 1 x C/A Grade 4; 1 x Steno-Secretary, Grade 1; 1 x Word Processing Typist, Grade 1; 1 x Typist, Grade 2. B. (2) Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories-Names and Titles of Members etc. Professor Ian G. Ross (Chairperson) Dr Henry L. Wain Mr John G. Ritchie, O.B.E. Mr J. Allan Dumaresq, Mr J. Arnold Hancock, O.B.E. (3) Length of Inquiry-Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories was appointed 18 January 1983. (4) Remuneration and Support Staff (a) (i) Chairperson $200 per day; Member $160 per day (ii) not applicable (b) Total Remuneration-Professor Ross $19,600; Dr Wain $13,870; Mr Ritchie $14, 720; Mr Dumaresq $9,490; Mr Hancock $4,720. (c) Support Staff-1 x Secretary (2nd Division, Level 1); 1 x Engineer, Class 4; 1 x Science (Biochemist) 4; 1 x Science (Chemist) 3; 1 x Clerk, Class 11; 1 x Clerk, Class 10; 1 x Clerk, Class 9; 1 x Clerk, Class 8; 1 x Clerk, Class 4; 1 x C/A Grade 4; 1 x Steno-Secretary, Grade 1; 2 x Word Processing Typist, Grade 1. C. (2) Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group- Names and Titles of Members etc. Commissioner-The Hon. Mr Justice Donald Gerard Stewart Counsel Assisting Mr T. Simos, Q.C. Mr P. J. Moss Mr I. Lawry (3) Length of Inquiry-Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group was appointed 28 March 1983. (4) Remuneration and Support Staff (a) (i) Mr Justice Stewart continues to receive remuneration as a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales ($77,440 p.a. and $4,140 p.a.); Mr Simos, Q.C.- currently $1,250 per day; Mr Moss-currently $800 per day; Mr Lawry-currently $ 600 per day. (ii) not applicable (b) Total Remuneration-Mr Simos, QC $38,750 to 5.9.83; Mr Moss $79,600-28.3.83 to 20.8.83; Mr Lawry $56,100-28.3.83 to 1.9.83. (c) Support Staff-Administration: 1 x Secretary (2nd Division, Level 1); 1 x Clerk, Class 8; 1 x Clerk, Class 5; 1 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 8; 2 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 4; 1 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 4; 1 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 3; 1 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 1; 1 x Steno-secretary, Grade 2; 3 x Steno-secretary, Grade 1; 1 x Word Processing Typist, Grade 1. Research: 1 x Clerk, Class 10; 1 x Clerk, Class 9; 1 x Clerk, Class 6; 1 x SRO, Grade 1; 3 x Clerk, Class 5. Commissioner's staff: 1 x Associate Clerk, Class 5; 1 x Tipstaff; 1 x Personal Secretary, Grade 2. ADP: 1 x Clerk, Class 8; 1 x Clerk, Class 4; 1 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 4; 3 x DPO, Grade 2. Instructing solicitors: 1 x Principal Instructing Solicitor (2nd Division, Level 2); 1 x Senior Instructing Solicitor; 1 x Instructing Solicitor (NSW); 1 x Solicitor. D. (2) Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies-Names and Titles of Members etc Commissioner-The Hon Mr Justice Robert Marsden Hope, CMG Counsel Assisting Mr D. Ryan, QC Mr J. Rapke (3) Length of inquiry-Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies was appointed 17 May 1983. (4) Remuneration and support staff (a) (i) Mr Justice Hope continues to receive remuneration as a Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales ($77,440 p.a. + $4,140 p.a.); Mr Ryan, QC $1, 250 per day; Mr Rapke $833.32 per day. (ii) not applicable (b) Total remuneration-Mr Ryan, QC had not claimed for any fees to 31.8.83; Mr Rapke $56,332.04 to 31.8.83 (c) Support staff-1 x Instructing Solicitor (2nd Division, Level 1); 1 x Secretary (2nd Division, Level 5); 1 x Principal Legal Officer; 2 x Clerk, Class 11; 2 x Clerk, Class 9; 2 x Clerk, Class 6; 1 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 3; 1 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 2; 1 x Personal secretary, Grade 2 (Commissioner's Personal Staff); 1 x Personal Secretary, Grade 1; 1 x Word Processing Supervisor , Grade 1; 1 x Steno-secretary, Grade 1. E. (2) Royal Commission on the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union-Names and Titles of Members etc Commissioner-Mr Francis Xavier Costigan, QC Counsel Assisting Mr D. Meagher Mr R. Wild Mr L. Lasry (3) Length of inquiry-Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was appointed on 1 October 1980. (4) Remuneration and support staff (a) (i) Mr Costigan, QC-currently $1,500 per day; Mr Meagher-currently $1,200 per day; Mr Wild-currently $800 per day; Mr Lasry-currently $800 per day. (ii) not applicable (b) Total remuneration-Mr Costigan, QC $993,750 to 3.9.83; Mr Meagher $688,950 to 16.8.83; Mr Wild $406,232 to 27.8.83; Mr Lasry $74,700 to 27.8.83. (c) Support staff-Instructing Solicitors: 1 x Senior Instructing Solicitor (2nd Division, Level 1); 1 x Principal Legal Officer; 1 x Legal Officer; 1 x Legal Officer-State Government. Administrative and research: 1 x Secretary (2nd Division, Level 3); 1 x Clerk, Class 11; 1 x Clerk, Class 10; 3 x Clerk, Class 8 ; 8 x Clerk, Class 6; 1 x Clerk, Class 5; 3 x Clerk, Class 4; 1 x Clerk, Class 2 /3; 2 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 6; 1 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 5; 6 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 4; 2 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 3; 12 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 2; 1 x Personal Secretary, Grade 2; 1 x Personal Secretary, Grade 1; 3 x Steno-secretary, Grade 1; 3 x Typist, Grade 2; 2 x Supervisor (Data Processing), Grade 1; 17 x Data Processing Operator, Grade 2. F. (2) Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam-Names and Titles of Members etc Commissioner-The Hon Mr Justice Phillip George Evatt, DSC Counsel Assisting Mr J. S. Coombs, QC Mr M. J. Kimber Mr G. Ellis (3) Length of inquiry-Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam was appointed 13 May 1983. (4) Remuneration and support staff (a) (i) Mr Justice Evatt continues to receive remuneration as a Judge of the Federal Court ($71,500 p.a. + $4,000 p.a.); Mr Coombs, QC $1,250 per day; Mr Kimber $550 per day; Mr Ellis $400 per day. (ii) not applicable (b) Total remuneration-Mr Coombs, QC $54,275 to 18.8.83; Mr Kimber $17,180 to 15.8.83; Mr Ellis $15,185 to 13.8.83. (c) Support Staff-1 x Secretary (2nd Division, Level 3); 1 x Clerk, Class 10; 1 x Clerk, Class 8; 1 x Clerical Assistant, Grade 4; 1 x Steno-secretary, Grade 2; 1 x Instructing Solicitor (Principal Legal Officer). Question No. 536 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) Is he able to say whether Specialised Chemical Products Pty Ltd, of Fyshwick, Australian Capital Territory, is threatening to close down and put 54 employees out of work because of continual problems with Telecom Australia. (2) Has his attention been drawn to allegations that Telecom has failed to reply to letters, respond to complaints about faulty meters, failed to install telemeters and has repeatedly lost the file; if so, what action will he take to overcome any problems and guarantee the employment of these people. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Telecom is not able to either confirm or deny the threatened closure of the company. (2) Mr C. C. Borg, Chief Executive, Specialised Chemical Products Pty Ltd, has approached Telecom on several occasions and investigation of Mr Borg's complaints have continued since June 1982 on both his home and business telephone services. Although Telecom acknowledges that there could have been closer liaison with Mr Borg during the course of the investigation, at no stage was the file misplaced or lost. Mr Borg's enquiries with Telecom related to three separate matters, (a) the faults affecting his business telephone services; (b) the metered calls charged on both his business and private telephone services; and (c) the provision of telemeters. Mr Borg telexed my office concerning his inquiries on 14 September 1983, and I have responded in detail to the matters raised. Question No. 567 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: With regard to the National Advisory Council of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (a) what is the procedure for appointing members, (b) what is the role of the Council, (c) how often and where does it meet, (d) what expenses are paid to the members and (e) what is the cost of the Council's operation. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information supplied by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (a) The ABC advertised in the press, on radio and television, inviting applications from individuals and from organisations wishing to nominate individuals for membership of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council. From these applications, the Board decided upon and recently announced the members of the Advisory Council. (b) The role of the Advisory Council is as laid down in section 11 and section 82 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. Section 11 states that the functions of the Advisory Council are- either on its own initiatives or at the request of the Board, to furnish advice to the Board on matters relating to broadcasting programs and television programs of the Corporation; and either on its own initiative or at the request of the Managing Director, to make recommendations to the Managing Director in accordance with subsection 82 ( 7). This subsection concerns the appointment of Community Affairs Officers and a Principal Community Affairs Officer. (c) The Advisory Council has met once in October 1983 in Sydney. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for February 1984. (d) In accordance with sections 10 and 11 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act, the Remuneration Tribunal is to determine the amount of remuneration and allowances to be paid to members of the Advisory Council. (e) This will depend on the remuneration and allowances set by the Remuneration Tribunal and the number of days on which the council meets each year. Question No. 626 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 October 1983 : (1) What involvement has (a) his Department, (b) AUSSAT Pty Ltd, (c) Telecom Australia and (d) the Overseas Telecommunications Commission had with each other and other organisations including educational institutions and Departments on the possible use of Domsat, the domestic satellite for educational purposes in remote areas of Australia. (2) What aspects of the education satellite issue are being addressed by each of these organisations. (3) Have interdepartmental committees or other committees been established to examine the introduction and use of Domsat; if so, (a) what are the committees and (b) who are the members. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows, based on advice received from statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio and the Department of Communications: (1) and (2)-(a) The provision of educational services is the responsibility of the education authorities, but I am concerned to ensure that opportunities to provide educational services via the Australian satellite are known and understood by the educational authorities. To this end, the Department of Communications has already established direct liaison with educational institutions, community groups, Federal and State Education Departments. Additionally, my Department has been represented by observers at meetings of the Commonwealth-State Advisory Committee on the Educational Use of Communications Technology, and made active inputs to a report entitled ' Potential Use of the Australian Satellite Communications Systems for School of the Air and Enhanced Educational Services' in March 1983. Since then, my Department has co-operated closely with the Queensland Department of Education in a study of specific applications of this report to the Mt Isa School of the Air, a project which was endorsed by the Committee. The above reports have involved close liaison with and contributions from AUSSAT Pty Ltd and Telecom Australia, and I understand that these reports are being drawn to the attention of education authorities throughout Australia by those responsible. My Department and the authorities in my portfolio are continuing to provide advice and resources as appropriate to assist educational authorities in their own consideration of satellite-based educational services. (b) AUSSAT Pty Limited has had considerable involvement with the Department of Communications, Telecom Australia, Commonwealth and State Departments of Education, Institutions of Technical and Further Education together with organisations and Community groups such as the Isolated Children's Parents' Association and the Royal Flying Doctor Service representing people in remote and isolated areas of Australia. Involvement of AUSSAT with the above groups takes the form of presentations and discussions to public meetings and conferences, formal and informal discussion, provision of specialised technical information, publication of information papers and participation in satellite demonstrations. The satellite demonstration will occur in 1986, centered on the Mount Isa School of the Air, and has been designed to demonstrate the capabilities of the satellite system for distance education. The purpose of this wide ranging consultation is to ensure that satellite users and responsible educational authorities and associated community groups are aware of the technical capabilities of the satellite system. (c) Telecom has provided extensive assistance to educational authorities and organisations to enable them to trial facilities and services over the terrestrial network which simulate corresponding satellite facilities and services. This provides those bodies with the experience required to assess the potential of the satellite to provide various educational services. Telecom has also co-operated in the study prepared for the Commonwealth-State Advisory Committee on the Educational Use of Communications Technology called ' Potential Use of the Australian Satellite Communications Systems for School of the Air and Enhanced Educational Services'. (d) The Overseas Telecommunications Commission was the interim owner and manager of the satellite from September 1980 until November 1981, when AUSSAT Pty Ltd was established. The Commission no longer has this responsibility. (3) The principal committee concerned with the use of the Australian satellite for educational purposes is the Commonwealth-State Advisory Committee on the Educational Use of Communications Technology. The committee comes within the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. The Department of Communications is represented by observers when invited. Question No. 637 Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 19 October 1983: (1) When was the decision made to allow townhouse development on section 57, Red Hill, Australian Capital Territory. (2) What consultation was carried out with the local community. (3) Were normal administrative procedures adopted in relation to this proposed development. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission that- (1) The residential land use policy for the site was determined by NCDC in November 1979 and the Minister for the Capital Territory informed in accordance with Section 12 of the National Capital Development Commission Act, 1957. (2) The Commission has undertaken an extensive program of consultation since the site was first proposed for residential development in 1976. At that time the plans showing the proposed use were placed on exhibition, residents in the vicinity were invited by letter to comment on the proposals and a public meeting was held. At that meeting the Commission undertook to prepare plans showing possible alternative developments for discussion, however, with the slowdown in Canberra's growth the proposals did not proceed at that stage. In August 1979 the then Minister asked for resolution of the status of the sites for which residential development had been proposed in 1976. Public comment was again sought on 7 sites, including Section 57, Red Hill. Draft development conditions for Section 57 were sent to nearby residents and contact was re-established with representatives of the group that met with the Commission in 1977. A second public meeting was held. The land use for the site was subsequently determined by the Commission and endorsed by the then Minister in November 1979 as 'Residential-Medium Density Housing'. The land use decision was advertised by an advertisement in the Canberra Times on 24 November 1979. In July 1983 the site was passed by the Commission to my Department for release . The Commission subsequently let a contract in August 1983 for site servicing. In delineating the site boundaries and determining access, the previous comments made by residents were noted. When site servicing started, nearby residents wrote to the Commission and myself expressing concern about the development. The Commission had invited residents to discuss the proposed development conditions but this invitation was declined. A second invitation was issued by the Commission and residents have accepted the offer to discuss the proposed development conditions and other relevant aspects. (3) Yes. Question No. 662 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 November, 1983: Which countries (a) sponsored, (b) voted for, (c) voted against and (d) abstained from voting on the 'Kampuchean' resolution of the United Nations in (i ) 1982 and (ii) 1983. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1982 Co-sponsors-Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Equitorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Houndaras, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Thailand, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, Uruguay and Zaire. Total: 49 co-sponsors. 1982 Voting-In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica , Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Hounduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senagal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United States of America, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Afghanistan, Angola, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, Geram Democratic Republic, Grenada, Hungary, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Poland, Seychelles, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Vietnam. Abstaining: Algeria, Benin, Cape Verde, Finland, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone , Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu. The resolution was adopted by 105 votes to 23, with 20 abstentions. (Resolution 37-6). 1983 Co-sponsors-Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zaire. Total: 51 co- sponsors. 1983 Voting-In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia. Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslavakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Guyana, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Hungary, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Poland, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Vietnam. Abstaining: Algeria, Burma, Cape Verde, Finland, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Sao Tome and Principe, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Zimbabwe. The resolution was adopted by 105 votes to 23 with 19 abstaining. Question No. 695 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 2 November 1983: (1) Did the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island, on 24 March 1983, pass and submit for assent a Bill for an Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Ordinance of 1979. (2) Did that Ordinance provide that temporary entry permit holders intending to reside permanently on Norfolk Island, if permitted to do so, and having been resident for a period of at least two years, would now be entitled to enroll and to vote for the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island. (3) Was the proposed law one which required the assent of the Governor-General. (4) Did the Governor-General on 14 April 1983, acting on advice of the Federal Executive Council, withhold assent on section 4 of the Legislative Assembly Amendment Act 1983, which section permits enrolment of some temporary entry permit holders, and yet assent to the remainder of the Bill dealing with other aspects of the Legislative Assembly Ordinance; if so, why did the Federal Executive Council advise the Governor-General to withhold his assent in this instance. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 23 March 1983 the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island passed a Bill or an Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Ordinance 1979. The Bill was presented to the Deputy Administrator of the Island, who at the time was performing the duties of the Administrator, for assent on 24 March 1983. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. The Legislative Assembly was informed of the reason why assent was withheld in a message from the Administrator provided pursuant to section 24 of the Norfolk Island Act. Assent was withheld because it was considered undesirable to change the qualification for enrolment on the electoral roll of Norfolk Island before giving expression to the wishes of the existing electorate for the holding of an immediate general election. This was in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate as expressed in a referendum held in February 1983. It might be noted that on 3 August 1983, a Bill with provisions identical to those of section 4 of the Legislative Assembly (Amendment) Act 1983 was considered by the Third Legislative Assembly. This Bill was rejected by a majority of Assembly members who constitute the elected representatives of the people of Norfolk Island. Question No. 696 Mr Snow asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) How many man hours were spent on operation and maintenance at the (a) Cape Liptrap, (b) Split Point, (c) Cape Sorell and (d) Hogan Island Lightstations in 1981-82. (2) In 1981-82 (a) how many hours of helicopter time were required to transport men and materials to each station, (b) what sum was spent on travelling allowances for departmental staff visiting each station and (c) what was the value of materials including electricity and fuel used at each station. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Man Helo *Other hours time Material expenses $ $ Cape Liptrap 127 Nil 475 1,560 Split Point 33 Nil 80 1,090 Cape Sorell 105 8 hrs 1,860 1,820 Hogan Island 100 *N/A 900 1,000 * Other expenses including travelling allowances, electricity-fuel costs and telephone charges which are not separately identifiable. * Helicopter time at Hogan Island not separately identifiable as helicopter usage was in conjunction with regular mail and stores flights to Wilsons Promontory and Deal Island. Question No. 697 Mr Snow asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) When (a) was the Cape Byron lighthouse tower last painted and (b) will it be painted next. (2) What is the expected cost of painting the tower. (3) What (a) is the value of paint presently held at the lighthouse and (b) amount is suitable for painting the tower. (4) For what period has this paint been at the lighthouse. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The exterior of the tower was last fully painted in June 1976, with the interior being fully painted in November 1978. Partial painting of the structure has been carried out at infrequent intervals since those times. (b) Both the tower exterior and interior are being fully painted November- December 1983. (2) About $16,000, including cost of Departmental labour. (3) (a) About $500. (b) The amount of paint required to completely paint the tower is some 240 litres costing approximately $1,200. The paint presently held at the lightstation is suitable for this task. (4) Since September 1983. Question No. 750 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1983: Is he able to say whether the last offensive by Vietnam was directed against the Nong Chan Camp in Cambodia; if so, (a) was the population of the camp reasonably estimated at 20,000 and (b) what happened to the population. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: During the last dry season offensive by the Vietnamese, the KPNLF military base and civilian camp at Nong Chan was attacked in February-March 1983. The population of the camp could reasonably be estimated at around 20,000. These people were moved to an evacuation site at Prey Chan. We understand that from July 1983 the inhabitants of Prey Chan were to be moved to a more permanent site at Sanro Changan. Question No. 792 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to complaints by amateur radio operators that the 27 MHz channel has been lost to citizen's band radio. (2) Did his Department indicate to amateur radio operators that the CB radio use of this channel would be only until mid-1982 after which it would revert to amateur radio use. (3) Does he intend any revision of the channel in the near future to accommodate the requirements of amateur radio operators. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) It is correct that when the Citizens Band Radio Service (CBRS) was introduced in 1977, the then Government indicated that the use of the 27 MHz band was an interim measure which would be phased out by July 1982. Following an extensive review of the CBRS in which comment was invited from all interested parties and organisations, the Government, in October 1980, announced that the 27 MHz band was to be retained by the CBRS beyond 1982. (3) There is no intention to vary the existing arrangements in the near future. I should mention, however, that since 1981, the amateur service has received additional frequency allocations in the 1.8, 3.5, 7 and 50 MHz bands. The amateur service has also been allocated additional spectrum in the 10, 18 and 24 MHz bands. I firmly believe that the allocation of these additional frequencies to the amateur service more than adequately compensates for the loss to that service of the 27 MHz band. Question No. 825 Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: What will be the function of the Naval Technical Services Section of his Department with respect to (a) design and (b) construction of the 2 FFG type vessels proposed for Williamstown Naval Dockyard. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Naval Technical Services have been closely involved in defining the design baseline for the two FFG type vessels to be built at Williamstown Naval Dockyard . The design baseline for these vessels is the configuration of HMAS Darwin, the last of four FFGs being built in the United States for the Royal Australian Navy , with the Australian Mulloka Sonar installed instead of the American AN-SQS-56 sonar. Naval Technical Services have an ongoing role in undertaking the following design functions: (1) managing preparation of the Mulloka design change package; (2) defining the requirements for the preparation and issue of working drawings to Williamstown; (3) investigations into acceptability of substituting Australian sourced equipments and materials; (4) review FFG class design changes for relevance to the two vessels to be built at Williamstown; (5) maintenance of specifications; (6) acting as design authority for major equipments to be built in Australia, for example, 76 mm gun and propeller system. (b) Naval Technical Services will be responsible for generally undertaking their traditional functions associated with a local construction program. Responsibility for the production aspects will be vested in the Australian Frigate Project Director who reports to the Director General Naval Production.