Wednesday, 7 December 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. The Deputy Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Mrs Kelly,Mr McGauran,Mr Porter,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Snow and Mr Tuckey. 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 interest 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 prinicipled 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'a 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 programs and thus frustrate its own state educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreement on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard,Mr Snow and Mr Staples. 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 working in government schools . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Forrest respectfully showeth that the Australian Citizenship Act contains provision for the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors: That the said Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained; and would strongly oppose any attempt to remove all reference to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance, and any attempt to remove all reference to the Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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 Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to reaffirm 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 Howard. 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 because television and radio (a) affect our social and moral environment, (b) are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and (c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate (a) for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public, (b) for a ''Dual System of Regulation'' enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control. (c) for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and (d) for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: In view of the increasing level of violence and the escalation of (officially admitted) US-sponsored covert and overt attacks against the people of Central America, particulary directed against Nicaragua, and noting the political solution proposed by the governments of France and Mexico to the civil war in El Salvador. Therefore we humbly request that the government of the Commonwealth of Australia: 1. Recognise the Democratic Revolutionary Front/ Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FDR/FMLN) of El Salvador as a representative political force. 2. Support, in any way possible, the call of the FDR/FMLN for a ''direct dialogue [with the government junta] without previous conditions, based on establishing peace and social justice in El Salvador,'' 3. Support in the United Nations (and other international forums) the initiatives of the government of Nicaragua for ''direct negotiations with the United States government based on mutual respect and recognition of [the] right to self-determination'' to resolve the military conflict in the region, 4. Extend economic and humanitarian aid without strings to the government of Nicaragua and Grenada for the purpose of economic and social reconstruction, 5. Place all possible pressure on the government of the United States to unconditionally withdraw all US military forces and facilities in the region, to end its support for anti-Nicaraguan forces in Honduras and Costa Rica, and to end all aid to the Salvadoran junta. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia humbly prays that: 1. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction be abolished. 2. Australian military expenditure be transferred to end world poverty. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Mountford. 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 August 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more that 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will- 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of Uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the people who have signed this petition ask all parties, Labor, Liberal, Democrats and others, to stop the latest increase in taxes and the forever increases in taxes which hit all people of the country of Australia in all goods and consumer goods and we call for a referendum on taxes and interest rates. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, do hereby request that plans to introduce a withholding tax be discontinued as it will result in grave financial consequences for many small businesses causing bankruptcies and loss of employment. At very least, we request that its implementation be delayed to allow for an evaluation of its effects and education in its operation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government pro- grams, e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond,Mr Groom,Mr McGauran,Mr McVeigh,Mr Porter and Mr Tuckey. 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 respectfully 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 has reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which has 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 Dobie,Mr Les Johnson,Mr O'Keefe 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- Parents 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McGauran,Mr Saunderson and Dr Theophanous. 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. 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 South Australia respectfully showeth: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor of 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable 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-Holden's, respectfully show- 1. That the management of General Motors-Holden's 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-Holden's to retain its operations at the Woodville plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to set proper standards of ministerial behaviour, in particular, by his support for the return to Cabinet of the Member for Port Adelaide in spite of the findings by Royal Commissioner Hope against the Member and in spite of the Member's misleading of the Parliament. The motion is seconded by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony). Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Acting Leader of the House)(10. 36) —The Government is prepared to facilitate the bringing on of that proposition . I seek leave of the House to move a motion to suspend so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) moving forthwith the motion of censure of which he has given notice. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of which he has given notice. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.37) —I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to set proper standards of ministerial behaviour, in particular, by his support for the return to Cabinet of the Member for Port Adelaide in spite of the findings by Royal Commissioner Hope against the Member and in spite of the Member's misleading of the Parliament. The Opposition moves this censure of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) because yesterday we witnessed the twisted contortions of logic, the twisted contortions of argument, the twisted contortions of principle and the twisted contortions of the truth. Mr Speaker, the curtain is now being raised to reveal the true substance of the Prime Minister as a man with no genuine concern for the public, no understanding of public propriety and no understanding of leadership. The Prime Minister is like a weather vane which twists and turns as the winds of political expediency change. When the prima facie evidence against the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) showed he had acted with gross impropriety this weather vane, the Prime Minister, sensed the wind of public opinion and forced the resignation of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Of course the weather vane has changed again. Now the wind is not blowing so much from the public; it is blowing from the Caucus room. Members of the Caucus are not concerned about propriety. They are not concerned about the maintenance of the highest standards of public office. They want their crony of 30 years to enjoy the fruits of office. Without a squeak of protest and without a twinge of conscience the Prime Minister suddenly changed. For months he told us and the public that the future of the honourable member for Port Adelaide depended on the findings of the Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security Agencies. The Royal Commission found that the former Minister breached national security. The Prime Minister said: 'I will put him back into the Ministry despite the unequivocal condemnation by His Honour Mr Justice Hope' That leads us to the conclusion that he has neither the strength of character nor the power of leadership to convince his parliamentary colleagues of the proper course of action. The Prime Minister knows that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen ) was right when on 30 May 1978 he said: Anybody who misleads Parliament should not remain in Cabinet and should not remain in ministerial office. That is spot on. The Prime Minister knows that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) was right when on 21 September 1982 he said: If the Government sets up an independent judicial inquiry then, very properly, if impropriety is established . . . the Government has no choice in the matter. There must be a dismissal of the person who is identified as being guilty. That is spot on. Mr Porter —Who said that? Mr PEACOCK —The former Leader of the Opposition, the Foreign Minister. He knows only too well that no lesser person than the honourable member for Port Adelaide was right when the honourable member, on 27 April 1982, said: Nothing is more important than the way in which these people who are called Ministers behave themselves and set an example to other people in Australia. Let us come to the words of the Prime Minister. On 27 May 1983 he said: The question of friendship and popularity can't work to influence a Prime Minister to make decisions which are contrary to the protection of the public interests of the country and the requirements of the law. Here he sits in this House. What a twist and what a change in a period of a matter of months. Cast aside the arguments because he will not stand up to the Caucus. The curtain has risen and there stands a Prime Minister not prepared to implement the principles or the matters of public propriety which he and his colleagues have alleged in the past ought to be the guiding light. Let us put it bluntly: Nothing can justify the return of the honourable member for Port Adelaide to the Ministry. Let us look at what the Prime Minister is trying to defend, what he is trying to excuse and what he is trying to twist out of so that there can be no mistake about the gravity of the former Minister's impropriety. Until the report of Mr Justice Hope it had been clearly established that the former Minister had deliberately misled the Prime Minister and that he had caused the Prime Minister to mislead this Parliament. It was only when he had been found out that he admitted to these major breaches of standards of public life. As I said yesterday, his disclosures to Walsh were not inadvertent or mistaken; they were deliberate. His concealment of what he had done was not casual; it was designed. His deception of the Prime Minister, his parliamentary colleagues, this House 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. For this he was forced to resign. During this period the Prime Minister was forced by Caucus numbers to keep the former Minister's seat warm, although he would deny it day after day. When we said the seat was being kept warm he told us that was not true. He said: 'Wait until the Hope Royal Commission reports; I will be able to take action then'. The Royal Commission reported. It found that the former Minister had acted in an unauthorised and improper manner. But the Prime Minister tells us that he wants to put the honourable member for Port Adelaide back into the Ministry. His Honour concluded, after all, that the former Minister's disclosures were both unauthorised and improper and, most important, that the disclosures satisfied all the requirements of an offence against the Crimes Act. But Mr Justice Hope's observations on the application of the Crimes Act to the former Minister's disclosures have been widely supported by other legal opinion. Let us look at what counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Mr Ryan, had to say: The facts which we submit can be found by this Commission whether or not they could be proved at a criminal trial, establish that Mr Young, on 21 April, committed an offence against Section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) found that if Mr Walsh's account of events were to prevail, and it did, 'as a matter of law, it is possible that an offence may have been committed'. What about the Solicitor-General? What did he have to say? He said: 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) of the Crimes Act. Perhaps the most damning of all is what was said by the Government's counsel to the Commission. He was acting under instructions from the Government, confirmed in this Parliament by the Prime Minister. Honourable members should remember that the Prime Minister said he gave the instructions to counsel. Counsel clearly stated that if one believed Mr Walsh's account, as the Royal Commission did, 'it would be a very serious matter'. So, some of the best legal opinions in the country found against Mr Young that he breached national security, that he breached Cabinet secrecy and that he told his mate information in a manner which was both unauthorised and improper. For such conduct any other citizen of this country would have been put before the courts and could well have gone to gaol. A member of this Parliament is not only being regarded as above the law because it would allegedly be too punitive to charge him but also is going to be promoted. No wonder the Canberra Times this morning contained a cartoon of the Prime Minister embracing the honourable member for Port Adelaide over the grave of David Combe and saying: 'Mick, Mick, you've suffered enough'. What is going to happen? He is going to be promoted. This Prime Minister, through the Attorney -General, perhaps always intended that, if the numbers were against him. What does one have to do-breach national security, leak from the Cabinet, mislead the Parliament and get promoted-to be sacked by this Prime Minister? That question was put to him yesterday. He would not answer it because he could not answer it. We can draw no other conclusion than that under this Prime Minister Labor's standards have not just slipped but have been blown apart. What reasons could the Prime Minister have possibly given to promote the honourable member for Port Adelaide, to place him above the law and again to give him full access to the secrets of Cabinet? Let me list the reasons that the Prime Minister placed before the House yesterday. Let me prove how pathetic, how unjustified and how inaccurate those reasons are when measured against the findings of Mr Justice Hope. Let me just relist the Prime Minister's four reasons for overruling and ignoring the findings of Mr Justice Hope on the former Minister. The list of excuses was: First, he did not mean any harm. Secondly, he was helping a mate. Thirdly, he was inexperienced. Fourthly, he served Labor for 30 years. Let us look at each of these excuses. First, the Prime Minister says that the honourable member for Port Adelaide 'never intended to place national security at risk, and the national security was not in fact damaged by his disclosures'. What did Mr Justice Hope say about that? He said: . . . 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. Excuse No. 1 is destroyed. Let us turn to excuse No. 2. This is the mateship excuse. The Prime Minister even quoted Mr Justice Hope's observation that the honourable member for Port Adelaide wanted to protect his friend. But he did not quote the rest of it, did he? Mr Justice Hope explicitly rejected that excuse. He said that these circumstances 'do not, in my opinion, diminish what I regard as the impropriety of the disclosures'. Excuse No. 2 is destroyed. Let us go to excuse No. 3. That is the inexperience excuse. The Government's excuse is that the honourable member had been a Minister for only six weeks. His Honour's assessment of that is: I have concluded that, notwithstanding this short Ministerial experience, it should have been apparent to Mr Young that he should not make the disclosures. Excuse No. 3 is destroyed. In the fourth excuse the Prime Minister told Australians to forgive the honourable member for Port Adelaide after only six months out of the Cabinet because he 'spent 30 years working in and for the Labor movement' and because '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.' Let us just examine that line of reasoning for a moment. Is the Prime Minister intending to suggest that Labor Party workers are above the law and above normal civilised standards? Mr Porter —Yes. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, the answer has to be yes. What about another question? Is he suggesting-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. In a debate such as this there is allowance for a reasonable degree of interjection. That allowance I think has been passed. I warn honourable members that if interjections continue in this manner I will have to take action against honourable members. Mr PEACOCK —Let me ask the next question: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that because someone expects a senior position as a reward for faithful service he cannot be denied even if his behaviour is totally unacceptable? The answer again is yes. The Australian people would be interested in that sort of principle because it gives a very clear indication of the basis of ministerial appointment . David Combe would also be interested in the more general application of that sort of principle. Nobody could ever accept excuse No. 4 as being plausible, and it too is destroyed. It is almost beyond belief that these four excuses can be put forward: He did not mean any harm; he was trying to help a mate; he was a bit inexperienced; he has put in a lot of years of faithful service. On that basis he is to be excused for putting our national security at risk and all his sins are to become 'inoperative'. Just remember, if those four excuses were to be the test, those responsible for the Watergate break-in would never have been prosecuted. They would have come through all four tests with flying colours, because those four excuses are essentially reduced to saying: He means well and is trying to help the cause. What does this all mean for ordinary Australians, the ordinary Australians who elected this Government? First, they see the national secrets reduced to mere common gossip and pub talk by the former Special Minister of State. Secondly, they see the Prime Minister refusing to fulfil his responsibilities by filling the ministerial vacancy. Instead, he has bowed to Caucus pressure and kept the seat warm for the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Thirdly, the Australian public sees that Mr Justice Hope has found that the former Minister's actions breached the provisions of the Crimes Act, that a wide range of legal opinion supports that view and that he will be penalised with a six-month suspension. He is to be promoted back into the Cabinet. These are breaches for which any ordinary Australian could have gone to gaol. The fact is that the Prime Minister has placed his former Special Minister of State above the law. The fact is that not only has be been contemptuous of the findings of Mr Justice Hope, but also he has been contemptuous of the proper standards of justice and, in every way, he has been completely contemptuous of the Australian people. Never let it be forgotten that just as this Prime Minister has severe cases of selective amnesisa he is also blatantly selective in his cronyism. He has chosen to defend his former Minister to the end, yet he pursued another crony, another mate, a well-travelled companion, Mr David Combe, with a pathological pursuit of a person probably unprecedented in government in this country. Instead of leading this country this Prime Minister has, by these actions, been revealed to be a mere puppet of his Caucus. The so-called populist Prime Minister is now the unprincipled man of straw, placing his own pride before every standard of Australian public life. The fact is that this former Special Minister of State stands condemned by the Hope report. He stands condemned for an unauthorised and improper disclosure. He stands condemned for leaking Cabinet confidentiality. He stands condemned for not only misleading the Parliament but also ensuring that the Prime Minister himself misled the Parliament by his non-disclosure back in May to the Prime Minister of what had transpired. The report we received yesterday was to be the basis for the Prime Minister to decide the future of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Now he comes before the Parliament, the Prime Minister deserting the responsibility of leadership of Australia, and he stands condemned by every meaningful principle of public life. The twisted contortions of logic I referred to at the commencement of my remarks, the twisted contortions of argument, the twisted contortions of principle, the twisted contortions of truth, have forced us to move this censure motion. Merely looking at the twisted contortions of the aging face of this duplicitous and mendacious Prime Minister, we are confirmed in our judgment today. Is it not well summed up? Let us look at the headlines of just one newspaper today. The headline in the Sydney Morning Herald reads: 'PM's early release for Young'. It has overtones of another headline in the Sydney Morning Herald: 'The early release of Rex Jackson'. We know of the early release scandal in New South Wales. Now we have the early release scandal of Mick Young. After months of alleging that the Royal Commission would be the determinant, to come before this Parliament, and throw the determinations of the Royal Commission aside to ensure that Mick Young will return to the Ministry is an abrogation of duty by the Prime Minister. It is an abrogation of every element of the principles of Cabinet government in this country. There will be no endorsement by this Opposition of a man who has breached national security coming back into the Cabinet. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.58) —Yes, I second the motion. This is the first time the Opposition has moved a censure motion on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is the highest condemnation we can make of the Prime Minister and it is totally deserved. The Prime Minister comes clanking into this Parliament, his loins girt about with truth, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of integrity, carrying the shield of veracity and holding the sword of probity; but yesterday his pants fell down. He showed that for all his claims of integrity and honesty he was prepared, when the crunch was on, to deceive this Parliament and the nation and to bow to the pressures of Caucus. His brief apprenticeship in the national Parliament has shown that he has not accepted the fundamental principles of government and has little respect for the workings of Parliament. He has betrayed the trust that the Australian people put in him by undermining the Westminster democratic system as we know it. The Prime Minister is deluding himself if he thinks that he can continue to prattle away to the Australian people with misleading, deceitful and dishonest statements. His transparency is becoming obvious; his arrogance is breathtaking. On the very day that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) barely escapes charges under the Crimes Act, the Prime Minister has the audacity to put him back in the Ministry. The honourable member for Port Adelaide lost his job for following the old mates act. He got it back because the Prime Minister has put the old mates act above his responsibility to Australia. For that, the Prime Minister must be censured. The issues involved in this debate on the motion of censure of the Prime Minister moved by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) this morning are complex and detailed. There is always a danger, in this avalanche of words, that the central issue will be buried. It must not be buried; it is of central importance to the Government. The issue is: Can we afford to let a blabbermouth back into the Ministry, a blabbermouth who has so little regard for his ministerial duties that he is prepared to endanger the security of this nation to tip off his mates and who has been condemned by the royal commission established by his own Prime Minister? There can be only one answer-no. The Prime Minister knows it, this Government knows it, the Australian Labor Party knows it, the Parliament knows it and the whole country knows it. Although this debate arises out of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, we did not need that Commission's report to know the facts about the honourable member for Port Adelaide. They are already on the public record. The honourable member for Port Adelaide had admitted breaching Cabinet confidentiality. He had admitted that he had not informed the Prime Minister of the breach. He had admitted that in so doing he had misled the Parliament and caused the Prime Minister to mislead the Parliament. It is also a matter of public record that it was only when the honourable member for Port Adelaide was found out that he went to the Prime Minister and offered his resignation. On these grounds alone, the honourable member for Port Adelaide should never be allowed back into a ministry of this country. The report of the Hope Royal Commission has set down clearly the extent to which the honourable member betrayed the trust placed in him and has explained simply and clearly to this Parliament and the nation just how serious that betrayal was. The integrity of the honourable member for Port Adelaide is not in question because it is non-existent. What is in question is the integrity of the Prime Minister and the Government. In the course of a 38-minute speech to this House yesterday, the Prime Minister made no serious effort to address the findings of Mr Justice Hope regarding his colleague. He made only the barest direct reference to these findings-a total of six lines or, if one wants to be generous, perhaps seven lines-in a speech covering 25 pages. What did the Prime Minister do yesterday? He devoted a considerable amount of his time to a tear- jerking recital of the virtues of the honourable member for Port Adelaide and the debt owed to him for his service to the Party. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not explain why one former national secretary to the Labor Party was owed such a great debt while another was not. But that is probably a question for honourable members opposite to ponder. The debts and the intrigues of the Prime Minister's association with these two people over a long period no doubt weave a tangled web. The Prime Minister's recital was wonderful stuff, but it had nothing to do with the central issue of the debate. The honourable member for Port Adelaide may be a good man, as the Prime Minister said. He may have spent 30 years working for the Labor Party, as the Prime Minister said. He may also have placed a high value on friendship, as the Prime Minister said. But so what? Ned Kelly was all these things-I do not know whether he worked for the Labor movement-but he was hanged. The honourable member for Port Adelaide does not face the same penalty, but he knew what he was doing and he knew what the punishment was. There can be no doubt about that. The Prime Minister painted a picture of the honourable member for Port Adelaide that would have done justice to Walt Disney. The honourable member, we were led to believe, was a skylarking youth, a lover of kittens and puppies and a friend of the poor and the sick who was led down the primrose path of innocence in the ways of life. The Prime Minister, however, omitted to mention that his innocent skylarking was much more than that. The honourable member for Port Adelaide is as politically innocent as Caligula. He is one of Labor's toughest, hardest, roughest and most ruthless operators and his reputation is national. Everybody knows that. The Prime Minister's flowery waffle yesterday was an insult to the intelligence of the nation. Despite the Prime Minister's attempts to distract the nation and the Parliament , despite the hysterical attacks by members of the Government on the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), the central issue will not go away. It is set out and nailed down in the report by Mr Justice Hope which was tabled in this House yesterday and is splashed across every newspaper in this nation today. The issue is that the Prime Minister is reappointing to his Ministry, to one of the highest offices in the land, a man who has deliberately, improperly and without authorisation made disclosures relating to national security. The fact that national security was not damaged, Mr Justice Hope said, was no mitigation. There was a real danger, he said, of significant damage to national security arising out of the disclosures by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Where security is concerned, if a soldier or a sailor talks of troop movements or convoys, even if the information does not pass to an enemy's hands he has no less committed an offence. The fact that the honourable member made disclosures to a friend did not lessen the impropriety, Mr Justice Hope said. Nor was it relevant that Mr Young was inexperienced. He should have known, Mr Justice Hope said. That should be enough. But there was even more. It is clear from what Mr Justice Hope said in his report that the honourable member for Port Adelaide has escaped a charge or charges under the Crimes Act by the skin of his teeth. In discussing this issue, Mr Justice Hope said that both the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and the Solicitor-General had given opinions to the Government on whether the honourable member had committed any offence under section 79 of the Crimes Act. Mr Justice Hope said that the effect of these opinions was that the honourable member's liability would depend on what facts were established about the actions by him. Allow me to quote from the report. On page 193 Mr Justice Hope said: However, the Attorney-General, whose consent must be obtained for any prosecution under the section, decided, in the exercise of his discretion, that there should be no prosecution. It has been submitted that, in these circumstances, 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 think that, in the circumstances, 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 do not pretend to be able to read Mr Justice Hope's mind but there is a clear and deadly inference to be drawn from this section. Mr Justice Hope is saying that it would be unfair of him to say whether the honourable member for Port Adelaide was guilty of an offence for which he had not been charged. There could be no argument about that. But Mr Justice Hope is not saying that if a charge were brought, the honourable member would be acquitted. He is saying that the honourable member is not facing a charge because the Attorney-General in his wisdom decided not to bring one, so he, Mr Justice Hope, will not rule on the matter. I would summarise Mr Justice Hope's findings on this matter not as not guilty, but as not proven. If I were the honourable member for Port Adelaide, it would not give me very much comfort and I cannot see how it gives much comfort to any of his colleagues on the Government side of the House. I have the assurance of the Prime Minister that the honourable member for Port Adelaide has learnt his lesson, and that he should not be punished any further. There are men and women probably at this very moment in docks in courts across Australia, who, if they are aware of the Prime Minister's comments, are no doubt praying that he will make some miraculous appearance on the bench in their courts. There is one law for the ordinary people of Australia. There appears to be another law for the honourable member for Port Adelaide, and there is yet another law, not a written one but real all the same, for people like Mr Combe. Mr Combe is a ruined man. He was silly, certainly. He was stupid, greedy and many other things beside. He has paid his price for his folly. It is a very high price. I do not argue with the Government's action in relation to him. There is a bitter irony in the fact that while Mr Combe has never even faced any charge in this matter, a Minister of this Government, who misled Parliament and the Prime Minister, resigned, and was found by the Royal Commission to have deliberately, improperly and without authorisation made disclosures which posed a real danger of significant damage to national security, is to go back to the Ministry, to get the pay and the perks that that office provides. The Prime Minister has made a decision. The Prime Minister will have to pay for that decision. The Opposition will lose the vote here today, but it is not just we who vote. It is the people across Australia who vote. They are the people who matter in the long run. We saw how they voted in the Northern Territory the other day because of the deceit of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will face the same sort of extinction because of his total lack of integrity on this whole question of putting the honourable member for Port Adelaide back into his Ministry. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(11.13) —Max Walsh, writing in the recent issue of Australian Business, got it right. He said: What Andrew Peacock is doing is following the political equivalent of the Dame Nellie Melba approach of 'Sing 'em muck'. This is what we have heard today-hypocritical muck. Let me at the outset get two points absolutely clear in the minds of members of this House and of the Australian public. That is necessary because each of these issues has arisen in the attempts made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony). The first point is to ask how it is that the Royal Commission into Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies ever arose, because they have set themselves up pathetically as the defenders of civil liberties in general, and remarkably, as defenders of the civil liberties of Mr Combe. How is it that this matter arose? Let us be quite clear that a sequence of events on 10 May was deliberately orchestrated to ensure that Mr Combe's name would be linked indelibly, publicly, with Mr Ivanov. I remember-and every member of this House will recall-what happened on 10 May. First of all, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) asked whether it was not a fact, as reported in the Press of that day , that a senior Labor man who had been one of the most important and influential figures over a long period had been closely associated with the recently expelled Soviet diplomat, Valeriy Ivanov. Of course I responded appropriately to that. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I indicated earlier that, while I will allow a reasonable amount of liveliness in the debate, when it is being carried to the extent that the Prime Minister cannot be heard addressing the House it is excessive and I will take action. Mr HAWKE —The second step in that deliberate orchestration to expose Mr Combe publicly was the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to the proposition that I had in fact referred to this matter in the Caucus. That was not true. The third deliberate step in this orchestration by the Opposition publicly to expose Mr Combe was that a question was asked by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). He asked whether it was not a fact that members of the Government had been instructed not to have associations with Mr Combe. Never has there been a more deliberate, orchestrated attempt to expose Mr Combe and his association with Mr Ivanov. We had taken every step to avoid that, but this was deliberately done. At no stage has the Leader of the Opposition attempted to deny that this was done. What he has tried to do is to justify it. What has been exposed in that process, clearly and beyond recall, is that it was he who made sure that the civil liberties of Mr Combe were put in jeopardy. The Government had done everything it possibly could. I turn next to the Opposition's new-found concern with national security. I want to contrast what has in fact happened under the finding of the Royal Commissioner with the attitude of the Opposition. The total approach of the Government in regard to the guardianship of the national security has been totally vindicated and endorsed. It is a matter of record that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was totally unable to address himself to that issue, because the Royal Commissioner had totally vindicated and endorsed the actions of this Government in guarding the national security. I ask the House to contrast that finding with the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. The fact is-and there is nothing that he can say which changes this-that in my presence he received from the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation a confidential briefing on the background of this matter but that, having received that confidential briefing, he was unable to stop his own front bench from orchestrating the disclosure in this House of the central facts. That proposition is indisputable. The conclusion is one of two: Either the Leader of the Opposition wilfully and deliberately in this place was party to the exposure of the confidential briefing he received or, if he was not, he was unable to prevent his own Party, his own Opposition, from participating in the disclosure of those facts. In either case, whether he deliberately did it himself or he was unable to stop that disclosure, he is not a fit person to be leading the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition knows that this is not the first time he has been involved in a wilful betrayal of an undertaking. He knows that he gave me a personal undertaking in regard to another matter, an undertaking which he has deliberately broken. Let us now turn to the standards which should govern the question of people resigning or not resigning. First of all, we will consider the Leader of the Opposition. Is the following not an interesting story? I ask honourable members of this House to recall with me the Age newspaper of 19 May 1977. Not only are the facts interesting; the justification of the Leader of the Opposition is more than interesting. On 19 May the Age reported that the then Foreign Minister, Mr Peacock, appeared to confirm the identity of the agents of the Central Intelligence Agency in Australia. He did this on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation news program. In regard to the naming of five CIA agent he was asked : You have been aware? Mr Peacock answered: Oh, yes. You know that the KGB and the CIA operate here. I am not prepared to say much more than that, though. Mr Peacock was then asked-I ask members of the House to note this very carefully and then to note the justification of the Leader of the Opposition-the critical question: The people named by Mr Agee, you already were aware they were CIA? Mr Peacock answered: Yes. Mr Lusher —When are you going to deal with the censure? Mr SPEAKER —When will the honourable member for Hume cease interjecting? Mr Porter —When he gets on to the point. This is outrageous. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Barker. Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition, in his capacity as Foreign Minister, participated in the disclosure of the names of CIA agents. As the report of the Royal Commission points out: Any indication of the identity of a friendly country's intelligence agents is regarded as a grave breach of diplomatic protocol. What was the excuse of the Leader of the Opposition? What did the Leader of the Opposition say, having as Foreign Minister engaged in this gravest of breaches of the national security by exposing the names of the operatives of a friendly country's intelligence service? His answer was reported in this way: Later Mr Peacock sought to clarify his remarks. He denied that he had intended to give away the identity of the agents in Canberra. The facts are clear. He broke one of the fundamental rules, which is something which no Foreign Minister should ever have done. He was party to disclosing the names of five agents of a friendly power who were in this country. What was his answer? What was his excuse? It was: 'I didn't intend to do it'. He now says in this House that the first excuse in respect of Mr Young which is not acceptable is that Mr Young did not intend to do it. What did he do himself in 1977? He broke a fundamental rule which breached every protocol. he said: 'You must excuse me because I didn't intend to do it'. Before we got to the question of the honourable member for Port Adelaide we will go- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —The Opposition wants to avoid this matter like the plague. We will get to the question of the honourable member for Port Adelaide via the route of examining the Opposition's standards in regard to resignations. It is legitimate for the people of Australia to expect that, if this Opposition moves a censure motion against me or against the Government on the question of what standards should apply in regard to the resignation of a Minister, it should have shown standards in government upon which it would be pleased to rest and which it could hold up as a standard by which we should be expected to act. As a first step in looking at what we have done, let us examine the standards which the Opposition followed. First of all I refer to Senator Durack. We know what the devastating findings were in regard to the previous Attorney-General in the September 1982 report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Costigan report-a royal commission report-showed that over many years the previous Attorney-General and his Department failed to initiate prosecutions against tax evaders, which cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars annually. That was quite clear. The report also showed gross incompetence, negligence and neglect in the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office-a savage indictment of the then Attorney-General. That matter was referred to in the Royal Commission report. Yet Senator Durack, against the findings in the Royal Commission report, did not resign when palpably he should have resigned. Let us come next to Peter Nixon. We will find out now what the standards of this mob were in regard to a proposition of a royal commission. I ask honourable members to remember what the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry was required to report on. It was required to report on, among other things, whether allegations in relation to the export of meat were dealt with by the then Minister Nixon 'in a manner that was adequate and effective'. That was a specific term of reference to the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission which the previous Government set up was asked to determine whether its Minister had acted in a manner that was adequate and effective. What did the Royal Commission find? Let me read paragraph 8.45 of the Royal Commission's report. (Extension of time granted) I am indebted to the House. Let us get back to the previous Government's standards, its Minister and its Royal Commission. It appointed the Woodward Royal Commission and asked it to find out whether its Minister had in fact acted 'in a manner that was adequate and effective'. What did the Opposition's Royal Commission find? I shall quote from paragraph 8.45. The Royal Commission found that the answer to that question was a clear no. The report states: . . . the Minister did not deal with these allegations adequately and effectively. What happened in those circumstances, where the previous Government set up a royal commission with a specific term of reference to find out whether its Minister acted in an appropriate way? The Royal Commission which the previous Government established found that he had not acted in an appropriate way. What happened? What did the previous Government do? Having set up its Royal Commission, it not only refused to accept the findings of its own Royal Commission it set about the task of attacking the Royal Commissioner it appointed. The previous Prime Minister, having appointed the Royal Commission, set about doing something that had never before been done in the history of this country. With his colleagues' silent support, having appointed the Royal Commissioner, the previous Prime Minister then attacked him. Why did the previous Prime Minister, with that miserable, silent support, attack the Royal Commissioner? The reason he did it was very straightforward. He did it because the Royal Commission which he established found that his Minister ought to resign. That was the Royal Commissioner's findings-that the Minister should have resigned. That finding was not acceptable to the previous Government or to the then Minister. He did not act as the honourable member for Port Adelaide did and resign. He refused to resign. The then Prime Minister refused to sack him. But that was not enough. The previous Government then set about the task of attacking the Royal Commissioner. Having dealt with Senator Durack and Mr Nixon, let us now deal with the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia. As far as the standards of the other side are concerned, I refer finally to the Deputy Leader of the National Party. What happened in regard to him? Mr Howard —He was cleared. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member does not know what I am referring to so he should not jump in. I am referring to the all-party Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which reported in September 1981 that the Australian Dairy Corporation had contravened the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade arrangements on milk export arrangements. The all-party Committee, including members of the Opposition, found that the Deputy Leader of the National Party knew of the breach and misled the House. According to the Opposition's standards he should have resigned. The matter is quite clear. When the Opposition was in government it displayed hypocrisy and a refusal to adhere to the Westminster traditions, the like of which had never before been seen in the history of this country. Those people do not come to the censure motion with clean hands. Let us contrast the way in which the previous Government abused its own Royal Commission and refused to accept its findings with what has happened in this case. In this case, as distinct from the Nixons, Duracks and Sinclairs, who not only refused to resign but also were protected by their own Prime Minister, the honourable member for Port Adelaide resigned. He did not have to be sacked. Mr Sinclair —Where is he? Mr HAWKE —These miserable people ask where the honourable member for Port Adelaide is. I will give them their answer. He is in Adelaide burying his brother-in-law. Shame on them! Absolute shame on them! That is where he is. That ought to silence that miserable bunch. That man, who is in Adelaide on that business, behaved honourably. He resigned. He did not do a Nixon; he did not do a Sinclair; he did not do a Durack. He did not refuse to accept the facts, as they did, and make a nonsense of the Westminster system. He resigned. What I was about yesterday was not, in respect of these so-called excuses by the Leader of the Opposition, to say that anything the honourable member for Port Adelaide did was justified on the basis of his six short weeks in office, that it was justified on the basis of friendship, that it was justified on any basis. Nothing that the honourable member for Port Adelaide did on the night of 21 April was justified by any of the factors that I put forward or by any other factor. The action was not justified. My statement yesterday made it clear that none of the factors to which I referred justified the action of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. What we are about is this question: If a man has erred, is he to be condemned forever? We have had out of the hypocritical mouth of the Leader of the National Party the statement that the honourable member for Port Adelaide should never be returned. I say straightforwardly to this House and to the people of Australia that that is not my approach. If a person makes a mistake he or she is not to be condemned forever. The right approach is to ask whether in fact the person has suffered as a result of that mistake. It is right to ask whether, in the circumstances, one can intelligently make the judgment that the person will not make that mistake again. In this case I believe that the honourable member for Port Adelaide made a mistake and that it was honestly made. I believe that this country and this Government are entitled to the return of his services. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister's time has expired. Mr Peacock —After the most pathetic performance of the Prime Minister-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —I move for an extension of time for the Prime Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —Do you want an extension of time? Mr Hawke —No. Mr Peacock —You will not take it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. He did not have the call . He shall not disrupt the proceedings of the Parliament just because of his position. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(11.37) —Without doubt the most significant thing to emerge from the events of the last 24 hours is not what the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies said and what has been said in the aftermath about Mr Combe, not what the Royal Commission has had to say about the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and not what it has had to say about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or Mr Ivanov; the most important thing to emerge over the last 24 hours is what this whole event has revealed about the character and the conduct of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ). This report, the events and the response of the Prime Minister and of the Government have revealed beyond doubt that this country is now led by a very vulnerable Prime Minister whose authority on matters of duty as distinct from matters of loyalty and mateship is very weak indeed. This demonstrates that faced with a choice between mateship and duty the Prime Minister will forsake duty and prefer mateship. Not one of us in this House would denigrate the Prime Minister's affection for his friends. Not one of us in this House would deny to the Prime Minister that very admirable Australian quality of mateship and fraternity towards one's friends. But one of the prices one pays for high political office, and supremely in the case of the Prime Ministership of this country, is that when it comes to the crunch duty to one's country and to one's Government is more important than loyalty and mateship. That is the overwhelming failure and weakness of this Prime Minister and this Government. That ultimately is what will condemn him not only in this Parliament but also in the eyes of the Australian people. This event and the circumstances of the last 24 hours have demonstrated that this country is led by a craven populist who puts loyalty, mateship and popularity in the short term above long term considerations. He has done that with the Government of the country as far as the economy is concerned. He is waxing fat in a political sense through the fortunate circumstances of Australia 's economy at present. He is caring not about the problems that his wages policy is storing up for the future of the Australian economy. He cares not about the erosion of our competitive position. Equally with the circumstances of this event, instead of having the courage to take on his Caucus and saying 'Look comrades, there is no way in the face of the finding of this Royal Commission report that we can possibly have Mick Young back' what does he do? He cuts and he runs. One can only wonder whether, in fact, some kind of deal was not done between the left wing and the Prime Minister on this issue. One can only wonder- - Mr Steedman —No deal. Mr HOWARD —Of course, the honourable member says there were no deals but one can only wonder whether, in fact, there were. Everybody around this building knows, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) pointed out yesterday, that the Prime Minister has been backgrounding for weeks that the honourable member for Port Adelaide would be out in the cold. He has been going around this place saying to the journalists: 'Forget about it; Mick has had it. Mick is on the way out. We are not going to bring him back'. But when it comes to the crunch the Prime Minister is not prepared to confront the Caucus. He is not prepared to tell the Party that he leads that its duty lies in rejecting the honourable member for Port Adelaide and not returning him to the Ministry. But the political crime of the honourable member for Port Adelaide-it is a political crime-runs far deeper than the finding of the Royal Commissioner. It goes far deeper than the fact that the Royal Commissioner found that the honourable member had made an unauthorised disclosure and that that disclosure was improper. More importantly than that-this is a political arena; this is a parliamentary arena-the former Special Minister of State lied to this Parliament . That is the great political crime the honourable member for Port Adelaide has committed. Not only did the former Special Minister of State lie to the Parliament but also, indeed, did the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The Treasurer will no doubt wax on about telephone calls and unspecified memoranda. Honourable members opposite can all get very worked up about that. They now have a trifecta of ministerial liars sitting in the ranks of the Hawke Government. The presence of the former Special Minister of State, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance is sanctioned, condoned and encouraged by the Prime Minister of Australia who, when it really comes to the crunch, will always put loyalty, political survival and political popularity above everything else. He has failed the most essential test of any great political leader and that is that when the crunch really comes-- Mr Cunningham —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr HOWARD —It is starting to hurt a bit, is it? Mr Cunningham —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the Ministers as liars. I think that is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is some substance in the point of order, but the term has been used on both sides of the House. I remind honourable members that although this is a debate on a censure motion unparliamentary language is not allowed to be used. Mr HOWARD —If the Government wants the language moderated, Mr Speaker, I will do so. Mr SPEAKER —I would prefer it to be moderated. Mr HOWARD —Not only was the former Special Minister of State found guilty of an unauthorised and improper disclosure; not only did he mislead the Parliament but also if one carefully reads the evidence one sees that he is placed in the invidious position of being told by the Royal Commissioner that, to put it very mildly and euphemistically, he was guilty of a great amount of selective amnesia . On page 185 of the Royal Commissioner's report the Royal Commissioner states: Mr Walsh's account of his conversation with Mr Young contains three matters additional to those contained in Mr Young's version of the same conversation . . . He goes on to list what those three matters were. Elsewhere in the Royal Commissioner's report one finds evidence that, to put it mildly once again, the honourable member for Port Adelaide was less than fulsome in the disclosures he made to the Royal Commission. On three counts one has the finding of an unauthorised and improper disclosure, the misleading of the Parliament and also this conflict between the evidence of Walsh and the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Probably the greatest illustration of the vulnerability of the Prime Minister's position on this issue is the fact that he made a 17 1/2 minute speech, was granted an extension of time and mentioned everybody in the Parliament, past and present, except the former Special Minister of State. He spends all his time talking about other people but does not mention the former Special Minister of State. The Prime Minister has demonstrated during this debate and by his response to this report that his standards of propriety, his standards of political leadership and his view of parliamentary and ministerial responsibility are infinitely inferior to those of former Labor Leader, Gough Whitlam. At least Whitlam had the courage to dismiss Connor when Connor was found guilty of misleading the Parliament in 1975. At least the then Prime Minister, Whitlam, had the courage to fight it out in the Caucus and to say: ' Look, you cannot maintain in your Government somebody who has been guilty of misleading the Parliament'. Whitlam-from a position of political vulnerability compared with the present Prime Minister's very different position in the present situation-was willing to confront his Caucus, to show leadership and to demonstrate a standard of propriety that this present Prime Minister is simply unwilling to do. Once again the Prime Minister of this country is indulging in and sanctioning double standards on the part of his Ministers. He was prepared to tolerate the double standards of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the great character assassin of this Parliament and the person who more than anybody else under the cover of parliamentary privilege last year was prepared to malign and traduce the reputations of honest and respectable Australian people. He was prepared to tolerate it then. He was prepared to remain silent then. He asks us to have some sympathy for the honourable member for Port Adelaide in his family predicament. Of course, all of us do. We might well have asked him to speak out against the despicable attack made by the the Leader of the Opposition on the former Attorney-General when he blamed the former Attorney-General's heart attack on that gentleman's handling of his ministerial portfolio. As far as I am concerned , the Prime Minister's totally artificial outrage would be a little more convincing had he dissociated himself from what the then Leader of the Opposition had been prepared to say on that occasion. Whilst we naturally extend personal condolences to the honourable member for Port Adelaide for any family loss, let us not be diverted from what this Prime Minister is really about today. This Prime Minister is in a predicament. He knows what his duty is. He knows darn well that the former Special Minister of State should not go back into the Ministry. He knows well that he is breaching proper standards of parliamentary and ministerial propriety. But he cannot do anything about it. The reason he cannot do anything about it is that the honourable member for Port Adelaide has the numbers in the Caucus, and he is such a craven populist that he is not willing to take his Caucus on. He had the audacity in this Parliament to invite the Australian people to believe that the former Government's standards of ministerial propriety were inferior to those of the present Government. Any objective political scientist would concede that the standards of the former Government and of the former Prime Minister of this country, who displayed twice the strength that this Prime Minister displayed on this occasion in dealing with ministerial propriety, were infinitely superior to those being displayed by the Prime Minister in the present circumstances. The double standards of this Government and of this Prime Minister do not stop when it comes to the way in which he totally ignores the fact that the present Treasurer misled the Parliament last week about the response of the Economic Planning Advisory Council to some economic projection. The double standards of this Prime Minister do not stop there. In the tabling statement that he made to the Parliament yesterday he correctly recorded many of the findings of the Royal Commission. Perhaps to the disappointment and chagrin of some members of the left wing of his Party, the Royal Commissioner said that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation did not do a bad job in the affair. We on this side of the House are very pleased that the opportunity has not been given to those in the Labor Party who would wish to do so to make ASIO a scapegoat in this whole affair. But the Prime Minister, lighting upon the fact that there were some circumstances in which ASIO fell short of an absolute standard of perfection, thumped the table and said: 'We are going to demand a high standard of performance from ASIO'. Apparently it is all right to demand high standards of performance from the Public Service. It is all right to demand high standards of performance from ASIO. It is all right to demand high standards of performance from Mr Combe. But for heaven's sake, do not demand high standards of performance from the honourable member for Port Adelaide because, after all, he is one of their mates and he has been in the Labor Party for 30 years. The poor, old, selectively amnesic honourable member for Port Adelaide has been in the Labor Party for 30 years, has worked very hard and, of course, deserves a break! He is a very inexperienced politician! He was only the campaign director for the Labor Party in 1972. He only knows every trick in the book, beyond the capacity of most other people. Yet we are invited to accept this and to pass it over. This debate and the events of the last 24 hours have demonstrated that, when it really comes to the crunch, this Prime Minister is not prepared to do his duty. This Prime Minister does not have the strength that many people in the Australian community believed he had. This Prime Minister will also fail the test on future occasions when he has to choose between popularity and duty. That , I put to the House, is an absolutely fatal flaw for any Prime Minister of Australia. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(11.52) —I was somewhat amused to hear talk about lying coming from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the champion liar of 1983. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that statement. Mr KEATING —I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. He is the man who, in the same spirit of mateship with Malcolm Fraser, stopped him telling the truth about the $9.6 billion Budget deficit we were facing in the middle of the election campaign. If one wants to talk about lies, there is the great lie to the Australian people in the critical week of an election campaign when judgments were being made about economic competence. Yet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) lying to the Parliament when he and his leader lied to the nation in the critical week of an election campaign. We also heard him, of all people, talk about what a royal commission found. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union found against his administration for five years when he was Treasurer. This is the man who nearly destroyed the corporate taxation system of Australia. This is the man who cowardly-I emphasise the word 'cowardly'-hung behind the Commissioner of Taxation suggesting that the incompetence in the management of the taxation system was all his doing. In fact when the Commissioner of Taxation published a telephone book of letters we finally found out who the liar was-the honourable member for Bennelong, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We will not be lectured by him about who liars are. I find this a joke. We are sitting here being told about honour and principle by people in the last Cabinet whom one could not knock out of the Fraser Ministry with a Cruise missile. It would not have mattered what a royal commission or a judge said; they sat it out like India rubber men bobbing up and down as the punches came. Just consider the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) talking about principle! He discovered all of a sudden that his estate was worth $600,000 more than he thought. He did not know where the $600,000 came from, and nobody alerted him to it until a couple of old ladies decided to take him to court over it. It was finally decided that this great man of principle who lectures us about principle, after he was dragged through the courts, had to give the money back. So, he should not lecture us about principle. The Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) consorted with criminals. He went to Long Bay Gaol to see Harry Miller. I do not think the Prime Minister consorts with criminals. I have not seen this Prime Minister consort with convicted criminals as has the Leader of the National Party. Let us deal with all those former Ministers. Mr Nixon remained in government even after the findings of a royal commission. We will not be lectured by honourable members opposite about principle or honour. They have no principles and they have no honour and they never had. We are not in the slightest way impressed by any of the remarks that they have made. Let me just make this point: Where is the public interest in all this matter? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) started his attack on the Prime Minister by saying that the Prime Minister had no genuine concern for the public and no understanding of leadership. Those were the two charges he made. Does any honourable member believe that the charge that the Prime Minister has no genuine concern for the public can be sustained? What was the public interest in all this matter? The public interest was whether Ivanov was a security risk to this country. That was the public interest. What have we found from all the mealy- mouthed attacks by honourable members opposite about that matter? The Government was cleared absolutely for its competence and propriety in handling the issue of Mr Ivanov. The Government was cleared on the matter of the Opposition's mealy- mouthed attacks on the Prime Minister for supposedly tipping off mates. But the Leader of the Opposition did not have the decency to make an apology when an expressed finding of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies cleared the Prime Minister of any wrong doing whatsoever; in fact it endorsed his action and said that it was with complete authority that he got in touch with Mr Farmer in that matter. Who let the security concerns overcome them? Certainly not the Leader of the Opposition who breached a commitment to this Government by allowing George here to get up and ask a question in which he named David Combe in Parliament. That is where David Combe's name came in. If there has been any destruction of Combe it resides with the right honourable member for New England, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who asked a series of questions and first named Mr Combe in Parliament. When we talk about the threats to national security the principal issue is Ivanov and all the affairs surrounding Ivanov. The Government was given a clean bill of health on this matter. As far as Mick Young is concerned we have not said for a moment that what he did was excusable. We have not said that for a moment. We have said that there was no damage to national security, that he paid his price and that, therefore, he was entitled to come back into the Cabinet. We never ever saw this sort of action from the former Government. It always resiled from any responsibility to have any inquiry. It crept around corners and attacked judges as the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, attacked the report of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. We turned all these matters over to a royal commission and we then stood up in the Parliament and said that we believed that Mr Young had paid his price and he was entitled to come back. We, like every other government, will let the public make its judgment at the poll. We will let the public make a judgment about the Prime Minister's view on this matter. I am sure that the public's judgment will be that the Government was justified in letting Mr Young return to the Government. I am sure that the public will support the Prime Minister's judgment in this respect as well. But the Leader of the Opposition talked about principles and returning to Cabinet. Mr Ian Cameron —What happened in Queensland a few weeks ago? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition talked about principles and returning to the Ministry. Let me just recount some of the things he said upon his resignation. In his letter of resignation to the former Prime Minister he said: I hereby tender my resignation from your Cabinet. This decision is irrevocable. I believe you have cast aside the stability and sense of direction of the Government. Indeed you have a dangerous reluctance to consult Cabinet and an obstinate determination to get your own way. As stated this decision is irrevocable . . . He says twice in the one letter: 'This decision is irrevocable'. But what do we find? Out he goes on 15 April 1981 and back he comes crawling, slinking into the Cabinet of Malcolm Fraser on 11 October 1982. When he realised that there was really no point in sitting up on the back benches, playing cards every day with Barry Simon and generally amusing himself like the clown he is, without any attention to any more serious obligations that he had in this Parliament, he finally thought that when that policy was not working he would get his backside back into a ministerial car and get the salary again. So back he came. Good old Andrew. Come on Daisy. Back he came, back into Malcolm Fraser's Cabinet. Was Malcolm Fraser any different? Was he less obstinate about getting his own way? Did he have different policy about the way in which he treated his Cabinet? He treated honourable members opposite for what they are-a bunch of mugs. I do not blame him. As far as honourable members opposite are concerned, the former Prime Minister realised that when you nurse a mug he will die in your arms. The Leader of the Opposition died in Malcolm Fraser's arms on every occasion. The former Prime Minister treated the Leader of the Opposition with the contempt that he deserves . It must gall Malcolm Fraser to see that a fop such as the present Leader of the Opposition replaced him as Leader of the Liberal Party. When we look at the cowardly attack which the Leader of the Opposition made on the former Prime Minister-not over Kampuchea, not when this matter came up-because his selective indignation was well and truly covered up and he was not going to be indignant about losing his place when there was criticism of Pol Pot and the murderous regime of Pol Pot was being exposed, we see that he did not resign then. He resigned months later because the former Prime Minister said something nasty about Barry Simon. That is why he resigned. How dare the former Prime Minister say something nasty about Barry Simon. He could not cop that. He just had to resign over that. This is the great man of principle. Does he really think that we are going to listen to him? Does he think we are going to stand up and say: ' Oh yes, Andrew, you have said all that. We have to tell Mick Young that he cannot come back, that the Royal Commission has damned us.' The Royal Commision would wipe the floor with honourable members opposite time in and time out. When we look at the report of the Costigan Royal Commission we see that Costigan changed the debate in this country about taxation. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was an honourable man he would not be in Parliament, let alone sitting in this chamber lecturing us about principle and everything else. So much for the leadership of the Opposition. So much for the Leader of the Opposition, his deputy, the Leader of the National Party and his deputy and their roles in all these affairs. The Prime Minister referred to an even more important matter. He referred to the matter of Mr Philip Agee. This is something which must be seen in its true perspective in order to be understood. What happened on this occasion was that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) who was then Foreign Minister-not the Leader of the Opposition with a licence that leaders of the Opposition enjoy -exposed and named five agents of the Central Intelligence Agency operating in Australia while he was Foreign Minister. He named them but it was a gaff. One of the headlines in the newspapers reads: 'Peacock denies CIA slip-up'. Another headline reads: 'Peacock says Government knew of CIA men then denies it'. If one has to be honest and if the Leader of the Opposition was honest could he suggest that Mr Young's behaviour was in any way more deleterious to national security than the things which he had to say as Foreign Minister? Of course he could not. But what happened then was that he said that he did not intend to damage national security. If Mr Young says that he did not intend to damage national security that is to be overlooked but when the Leader of the Opposition says that he did not intend to do it he is supposed to be exonerated because he is a Liberal. He is part of the bunyip aristocracy, a remnant of the failed upper class, one of the crowd who reside in Melbourne and govern Australia. He is supposed to be let off while the rest of us are supposed to pay the penalty. We will not pay the penalty because the former Government set the standards about whether Ministers should resign over certain things. In this respect what we find is a total breakdown of integrity on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in an instance very similar to this one where he exonerated himself and where he now asks of Mr Young his continuing absence from the Ministry, whereas he slunk back into every Ministry into which he could get himself. The other charge that the Leader of the Opposition made was that the Prime Minister had a pathological pursuit of David Combe. But everything, and I emphasise the word 'everything', in the Royal Commission report rebuts that charge. The report says that the Government did everything appropriate to protect David Combe's name. When reference is made to the meeting between the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and David Combe the express question is asked in the recommendations: Did the Government honour the undertakings given to Combe at that briefing after he was named in the House by Mr Sinclair? The positive answer to that question is: Yes, the Government did honour those obligations and did nothing to upset or dishonour those obligations. In fact, the only breach of agreement was Mr Combe's own statements in breach of the arrangement he made with the Government. The Government did everything to protect Combe's name while Opposition members took the sleazy, political path. They do not understand what leadership is all about. Leadership is about leading on issues when one has to overcome tawdry political opportunism. The reason the Leader of the Opposition could not overcome tawdry political opportunism is that he is no leader. He is a weak man who is run by the National Party of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition was leading on this issue, he was running this issue, until the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and wheat bag, the Leader of the National Party, decided to get in and run the issue for him. That is when the Leader of the Opposition got pushed to one side and that is when George decided to name David Combe in Parliament. That is a fact. The Leader of the Opposition is not a leader's bootlace. He talks about leadership. Leadership is doing the right thing and the hard thing. The Leader of the Opposition does not know what that is about, he has no idea. He exploited this issue for his own advantage, he exploited it up hill and down dale. The Royal Commission overwhelmingly and absolutely endorses what the Government did. It supports the Government in every respect on its handling of the affair. But the Leader of the Opposition could not overcome cheap political opportunism. He did not even have the decency to apologise when there was an express finding against the charges he made against the Prime Minister. On all counts, the Opposition's basic charge that the Prime Minister has no concern for the public interest is false and is a lie. The claim that he has no leadership is false and a lie, and we reject it absolutely. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(12.10) Mr Speaker- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johnson, LesBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. 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.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Steedman, A. P.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. 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.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connelly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McCGroom, 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. Jones, Barry Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. 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.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.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. Baldwin, P. J. Johnson, LesBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. 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. Midren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Steedman, A. P.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Street, A. A. Jones, Barry Question so resolved in the negative. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This omnibus Bill seeks to implement a number of amendments of an administrative nature to the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 pending completion of a comprehensive review of Commonwealth fisheries legislation. The amendments are designed to streamline and improve the administration of fisheries management arrangements for the benefit of both the industry and the Government. The Bill will amend the Fisheries Act 1952 to simplify licensing requirements, overcome a number of administrative difficulties and include review provisions in relation to licensing functions and fisheries notices made under section 8 of the Act. In particular, I draw the attention of honourable members to the removal of the requirement for crew members of fishing boats to be individually licensed. In future only master fishermen will be required to hold a licence. There has been strong and continuing criticism from the fishing industry because the Commonwealth is maintaining a licensing system that is no longer necessary for effective fisheries management. The Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce in its report on the Australian fishing industry tabled earlier this year also expressed similar concern and recommended removal of unnecessary licensing provisions. The amendments, which have the support of the fishing industry, will simplify existing arrangements by reducing the number of licences required, and associated administrative costs. Another important provision of the Bill will enable the entry of unlicensed foreign fishing boats to Australian ports for major repair and similar purposes. The entry of unlicensed foreign fishing boats for these purposes, which has the potential to provide significant economic benefits for Australian industries, has been limited by restrictive port entry criteria in the Fisheries Act. Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill will remove this difficulty by providing for the authorisation of entry into Australian ports for specified purposes. It is not intended that such authorisations be used for the purpose of allowing unlicensed foreign fishing boats to enter ports for routine refuelling and revictualling or minor repairs on an ad hoc basis. Clause 9 of the Bill will provide a procedure for formally controlling the activities of research boats in the Australian fishing zone by allowing the granting of permits for scientific purposes. Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill will permit the application of the Fisheries Act to Australian fishermen operating beyond the outer limits of the Australian fishing zone, should this be required under future international fisheries management arrangements. It is likely that if international agreement is reached on the management of highly migratory species of fish such as tuna, each country concerned will be required to control its own fishermen on the high seas. The Bill will remove all references to traditional fishing from the Fisheries Act. Traditional fishing as defined in the Fisheries Act relates to fishing by indigenous inhabitants of Australia's external territories, with particular application to Papua New Guinea. With the granting of independence to that country several years ago, that term is no longer necessary for fisheries management under the Act. The Bill also effects a number of other amendments to the Fisheries Act to streamline administrative procedures. These include additional powers relating to the cancellation of licence endorsements, changes in licence conditions, and the endorsement of licences to exempt the licensee from a prohibition imposed by a specified fisheries notice. The Fisheries Act currently permits licences to be endorsed only in respect of one type of fisheries notice. These amendments will permit greater flexibility in implementing fisheries management arrangements. I am pleased to announce the inclusion in the Fisheries Act of review provisions to allow parliamentary scrutiny of fisheries notices and adminstrative review in relation to certain licensing powers. In particular, I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 11 of the Bill, which provides that fisheries notices made under section 8 of the Act must be tabled in Parliament and may be disallowed by either House. This amendment was also recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce in its report on the Australian fishing industry. The amendments in clauses 19 and 27 of the Bill provide for administrative review of decisions relating to licensing functions, other than decisions in respect of foreign boats or persons who are not citizens or residents of Australia. These provisions reflect the Government's commitment to the principle that discretionary powers exercised under Commonwealth legislation should be reviewable. However, in this Bill special provision has been made to recognise the position of State officials acting under Commonwealth law. Before the Bill is debated I will arrange to consult the States on the implications of the proposed provisions. Decisions on licensing matters made personally by the Minister or the Secretary will be directly reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Decisions on licensing matters by delegates of the Minister, including State officials acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, although not reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, will be subject to reconsideration by the Minister or Secretary or a Commonwealth official delegated to review decisions. Any decision made following such reconsideration may then be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Decisions of a fisheries joint authority itself will not be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government considers that , as a policy making body comprising Commonwealth and State Ministers, it is not appropriate to subject a joint authority to Commonwealth administrative review. However, decisions of delegates of a joint authority may be subject to reconsideration by the joint authority itself or a delegated Commonwealth official. Any decision made by that official would then be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I point out that while this Bill amends some provisions relating to the functions of fisheries joint authorities as a consequence of other amendments to the Act and the inclusion of review provisions, implementation of the system of joint authority management of fisheries will depend on the outcome of the review of the offshore constitutional settlement now being undertaken by the Government. The Bill will also amend the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 to extend the Act to apply to the seabed beneath the territorial sea of the Coral Sea Islands territory. This amendment is necessary in the light of advice from the Attorney-General's Department that the Act does not apply to this area of seabed. The amendment, which will complement regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 in its application to the proclaimed nature reserve in the Coral Sea Islands territory, will ensure that the Commonwealth has adequate jurisdiction over the seabed area to prevent the illegal taking of giant clams and other sedentary organisms. Finally, the Bill will amend the Fishing Industry Act 1969 to authorise approval of a Northern Territory fund for the purposes of determining Commonwealth fishing research funding levels under the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account arrangements. Under the Act, the Commonwealth matches the amounts paid into recognised State funds on a dollar for dollar basis. The Commonwealth's contribution is appropriated for credit to the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account. The Northern Territory is not a State for the purposes of the Act and although, in 1979, it established a fund similar to that recognised in each State, that fund cannot be approved without an appropriate amendment to the Act. In 1982, the Australian Fisheries Council noted the urgent need to amend the Act to include the Northern Territory fund with those of other States to give proper recognition to the Territory's contribution to fishing research. The proposed amendment will allow approval of the Northern Territory fund as one qualifying for matching Commonwealth fishing research funding. Mr Speaker, the foregoing amendments provide long awaited reforms to the fisheries legislation which will assist the Government to discharge more efficiently its management responsibilities for the valuable fisheries resources off our shores. The amendments come at a time when the Government is in the process of introducing new and improved management arrangements for a number of important fisheries to provide for the long term stability of the fishing industry and at the same time protect the biological needs of those fisheries. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(12.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Australian Citizenship Act provides the basis for the citizenship of all Australians, regardless of their origin, or their cultural and linguistic background. The Act provides for the acquisition of Australian citizenship by birth in Australia, by descent through birth of a child to an Australian parent living overseas, and by grant to persons who have come to Australia to settle. It also provides the basis for the loss, renunciation and deprivation of Australian citizenship in certain circumstances. The Government is committed to ensuring that the Act reflects the national identity of all Australians; that it does not discriminate between persons on the basis of their sex, marital status and present or previous nationality; that it provides for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions to deny or deprive persons of citizenship under the Act; and that it is thoroughly Australian in character. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to those commitments. It is important to appreciate that Australian citizenship did not exist prior to 26 January 1949. Before that time all persons living in Australia were either British subjects or aliens. The current Act still retains many transitional provisions which reflect this historical fact and which provide for British subject status to be given automatically to Australian citizens and the citizens of 46 other Commonwealth countries. Many people genuinely wish to become Australian citizens and assume the associated rights and responsibilities as soon as possible after entering Australia. On the other hand, an estimated 1.2 million non-citizen residents who have lived here for more than the present minimum residential period of three years have not applied to become citizens. The Government wishes to encourage both groups of people to become citizens. We believe that the package of measures contained in this Bill will assist those who wish to become citizens as soon as possible after settling in Australia as well as removing what many people see as the disincentives to acquiring citizenship contained in the present Act. Despite the large number of residentially eligible people who have not taken out citizenship, the number of persons applying to become citizens has increased rapidly in recent years-from 78,000 in 1981-82 to 101,000 in 1982-83. A similar rate of increase is occurring this year. The reasons for the rising application rate are varied but the underlying cause is undoubtedly a greater pride in Australia and in the status of Australian citizenship. This government is moving to change the citizenship requirement for future permanent employment in the Public Service and the defence services from one of British subject status to one solely of Australian citizenship. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins), recently announced the Government's intention to amend the Public Service Act for permanent government employment to this effect. Similar changes to the Commonwealth and State Electoral Acts to require Australian citizenship for future electoral enrolments will be proclaimed shortly. In the face of the increased rate of applications for citizenship, my Department is introducing new computer-assisted processing procedures to streamline the handling of applications and to reduce the time taken to complete each case. The staffing of citizenship sections in each of the Department's offices is currently being reviewed as part of this upgrading of the services provided. In May 1983, my Department entered into an agreement with Australia Post for citizenship applicants in larger country towns to be interviewed by senior postmasters on an agency basis. That arrangement has reduced delays in processing applications from country areas and is proving to be most efficient. This Bill is the outcome of the most extensive review of the Citizenship Act since it was passed by Parliament in 1948 under the Chifley Labor Government. On 6 May 1982 the then Minister announced a set of proposed amendments which had already been the subject of close consideration by ministerial advisory bodies and by State governments. The proposals were widely circulated throughout Australia last year to community organisations and were discussed at public forums in every capital city in June and July 1982. Additional input was obtained from written submissions and informal talks. The views expressed through these national consultations were summarised in the report on the national consultations on multiculturalism and citizenship by Professor Zubrzycki which I tabled in Parliament on 31 May this year. In preparing this Bill, the Government has carefully considered the earlier proposals, the views put at the national consultations and amendments suggested by the Human Rights Commission which also undertook a thorough review of the Citizenship Act in 1981-82. Of course, the Government's own policy commitments have been included. For instance the Bill: Reduces the qualifying period from three to two years for citizenship by grant; allows for appeals on a number of grounds to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. No longer will the Department, the Government or Minister have a final determinative power in these cases. Decisions to deny or deprive citizenship will now have to be justified before the AAT on appeal. I will later include in detail those areas which will be subject to appeal; and amends the requirement that an applicant for citizenship demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the English language. Knowledge of English is essential to full participation in Australia's social, cultural and political life, but the Government does not wish to deny citizenship to those with limited English who have lived in Australia for some time and who would take pride in becoming citizens. The Bill therefore proposes that applicants for citizenship must have only a basic knowledge of English. Applicants over 50 years of age, though, will be exempted from the new requirement of basic English, recognising the difficulty many older persons have in learning a new language. The present Act allows the automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship by British subjects resident in or with close connections with Australia in 1949, when the Australian Citizenship Act came into force. It was, at the time, entirely reasonable that British subjects, including those aliens who had been naturalised, should automatically be granted the new Australian citizenship under the new Act. With the passing of 34 years since those transitional provisions were enacted, they are now irrelevant and the amendments will seek their repeal. There are historical reasons for the status of British subjects in the Act. When Australian citizenship was first created, it was one of many initiated by Commonwealth countries under an all-embracing British subject nationality. The common code concept of uniting all Commonwealth countries under the umbrella of British nationality is no longer valid. All other Commonwealth countries, including Britain itself, have abandoned this notion. Australia is now the only country in the world to continue to use the concept of British subject status in preference to its own nationality. The amendments will provide for the repeal of the definition of British subject status from the Australian Citizenship Act at a date to be proclaimed following an examination of the implications for the operation of other Commonwealth and State legislation which at present depends upon the Citizenship Act definition. Let me emphasise that the changes to the Act relating to British subject status derive from the need to provide equal rights for all groups, and have regard to developments overseas and the changes which have occurred in Australian society since 1949. We do not seek to prejudice the position of British settlers. Rather , we see it as fitting that Australian citizenship should have a unique status in Australia and be the basis in future of citizenship rights and privileges. I said the Bill proposes that the residence eligibility period for citizenship by grant be reduced from three years in the previous eight years, to two years in the previous five years. It also proposes to relax the continuous residence requirement from the 12 months immediately preceding the application of 12 months residence in the previous two years. This change recognises the increasing difficulty which the current requirement can cause to people in a world which is increasingly internationally mobile. This Bill proposes, however, that in future only legal permanent residence will count for residence purposes and that applicants will have to satisfy the minimum requirement before they can apply. Currently, there is a legal obligation upon the Minister and the Department to either approve or reject each application when processed. This has meant that some applicants who were not quite able to meet the requirements have had to be summarily rejected despite the likelihood of qualifying soon after. A new provision will allow a decision on an application for the grant of citizenship to be deferred for a period, or periods, of up to a total of 12 months to enable the applicant to meet one or more requirements. It also provides that persons serving a prison sentence, or under various other forms of detention or good behaviour probationary orders, are not eligible to be considered for citizenship . The declaration of allegiance made at the time that Australian citizenship is granted is, quite properly, regarded as of singular importance by many people. It incorporates three separate elements: The renunciation of former allegiance, a commitment to observe the laws of Australia and the declaration of new allegiance to Australia. There has already been considerable community discussion on this issue. There was strong support at the national consultations for wording which is distinctly Australian in character, which expresses full commitment to Australia, its laws and the Constitution, and which avoids the requirement to swear allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere. The report on the consultations makes it clear that these views were shared by people from a variety of backgrounds including holders of imperial awards and persons who expressed in other ways a wish to maintain a link with Britain. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, drew attention in May 1982 to the confusion caused to many new settlers by this aspect of the existing oath and to the resistance of many people to taking such an oath. The Government has given careful consideration to whether it is desirable to have one form of allegiance which would avoid the public division of people which occurs now at citizenship ceremonies with persons separated into two groups wishing to take either the oath or affirmation. This has been criticised for serving to accentuate people's differences of belief at a time when we should be emphasising their common commitment to their new nation. On the other hand, we recognise that many people wish to swear an oath before God when giving allegiance to their new nation. So we propose to adopt a new pledge of Australian citizenship to be made by all new citizens in either of two forms. The proposed wording for the first form is: I renounce any current citizenship and allegiance to any State other than Australia. I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The second form of allegiance pledge proposed is: I renounce any current citizenship and allegiance to any State other than Australia. I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. Mr Hodgman —So the atheist republicans got the numbers. Is that right? Treason. Mr WEST —No. The honourable member for Denison can see that we have retained a right for people to swear by Almighty God. The present renunciation of allegiance is ambiguous and does not make it clear whether people are being asked to renounce their previous nationality, their previous language and culture, or all three. I believe it is important that the future wording of the renunciation makes it clear that it is only allegiance as a citizen to one's former state or country that is being renounced. As a result of recent statements I have made in this House and elsewhere about the desirability of having a more Australian form of allegiance, some members of the Opposition have sought to make this a divisive public issue. They have been supported by a minority in the community which does not appear to accept the reality that Australia is now a multicultural community and also an independent nation. People will simply be asked to swear allegiance to Australia and its laws and Constitution. The two forms of the pledge, both religious and non- religious, that I have proposed will allow all people, whatever their views or religion, to make a full commitment of allegiance to Australia. Neither form differentiates between Australians on the basis on their attitudes to the monarchy. While there may be legitimate differences of views on this issue, they should not, in the Government's view, be invoked in a Australian citizenship ceremony. In the case of a person obtaining Australian citizenship by fraud, deceit, the concealment of information or any other dishonest means, the Minister will have discretion to deprive that person of citizenship. This discretion also extends to a person convicted of a major offence committed, but not known about, before that grant of citizenship. I stress that deprivation of Australian citizenship could only occur for offences committed before the grant of citizenship. Moreover, it will occur only if the responsible Minister, after careful consideration of all the facts, is satisfied that it is in the public interest for a person not to remain an Australian citizen. The law will not allow a person to be deprived of citizenship if it has been obtained properly and honestly. The existing Act discriminates on the basis of sex and marital status. Mothers, for example, do not have the same rights as fathers in determining their children's citizenship. It has been decided to amend the Act to place mothers and fathers on an equal footing for all purposes related to their citizenship, and the citizenship of their children. All other discrimination on the grounds of gender and marital status will be removed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Before the honourable member proceeds, it being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The Minister will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Prime Minister recall that the non-disclosure of information by the honourable member for Port Adelaide caused the Prime Minister to mislead the House? In view of the fact that this most serious offence, the misleading of this Parliament, lay outside the terms of references of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, what action does he now propose to take on this matter? Mr HAWKE —As is recognised by all speakers of the Opposition, the answer that I gave on 17 May was in accordance with my understanding of the response that had been given to me by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Those circumstances have been taken into account by my colleagues and me in the decisions that we have taken in regard to the honourable member for Port Adelaide, which considerations I have responded to at length. It seems appropriate to me that if we are to talk about the impact upon the public interest of the non-disclosure of information, it would make sense if we put those things into some perspective and remember the impact of the non-disclosure that is involved in the actions of other people. It would be a very interesting exercise if, in regard to the question of non-disclosure and the subsequent misleading of the Parliament, at some stage the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would tell this House what, in fact, the circumstances were that existed between himself and the previous Prime Minister in regard to the most massive non-disclosure in the history of this country, that is, that which occurred in the week before the election when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the previous Prime Minister had a conversation. It is very interesting to speculate on the nature of that conversation. Did the then Treasurer say to the then Prime Minister: 'Prime Minister, I want you to know that this country is $3.6 billion worse off than it was'? Did the then Prime Minister say to the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition: 'Well, we must not tell the truth'? Did the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as a matter of mateship and friendship to the Prime Minister, say: ' Oh well, yes, you are my friend, Prime Minister. We will not tell the people of Australia the truth'? Once these people on the other side of the House can come into this House with clean hands, the people of Australia may begin to take some notice of them. Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Mr ROBERT BROWN —I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the prospect of continued recovery in economic activity next year, does the record of compliance with the prices and incomes accord to date give any basis for believing that the accord will not hold together next year and beyond? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his, as usual, very penetrating and relevant question. Mr Howard —It will be more penetrating than the answer, I will bet. Mr HAWKE —Ha, ha, ha! Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I suggest to honourable members that they had a reasonable period of restiveness this morning. Could they abide by observing the Standing Orders during Question Time? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for getting the House back to the realities that concern the people of this country. The prices and incomes accord is in excellent shape. There is an overwhelming adherence to the prices and incomes accord by the trade union movement of this country. What is the basic reason for that? The basic reason for that is that the trade union movement, as does the overwhelming majority of the business community, which identifies with the economic policies of this Government and has rejected the hopelessness of the alternative on the other side, understands the thrust of the prices and incomes policy which is very simple. One does not need a wages policy in times of recession of the sort that the previous Government inflicted upon this country, because the economic forces of recession that it inflicted upon the country would have ensured a relatively low movement in wages. The point of a prices and incomes policy is to deal with that period of economic recovery which the policies of this Government have brought into being. It is very important that as we go into 1984 with the very strong economic growth that flows from the policies of this country that we have a policy in place which will ensure that there is not a break-out of a wages explosion. Of course, our policy, which is being adhered to, will produce that result. This will mean that during the very strong economic recovery of 1984, which is flowing from our policies, we will not have a wages blow-out. What is the alternative? The alternative is the discredited and pathetic alternative that has been advanced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Members of the Opposition are like the Bourbons. They know nothing and they learn nothing. What did they do in 1980, 1981 and 1982? They had a non-wages policy which said: ' Leave it to the market'. What did the market do? The market blew out with quite an unsustainable level of wage increases. What would happen under the policy outlined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 23 November? I ask the honourable member to think about that. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke at the University of New South Wales and suggested-- Mr Howard —It was a very good speech. It was an excellent speech. Mr HAWKE —Half of the Opposition says that it was excellent; the other half says that it was a nonsense. The other half is right. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. He will please comply with the rulings of the Chair. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I can understand the unhappiness of members of the Opposition. Half of them say: 'Yes, we agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We want to return to the nonsense of the past'. What would that nonsense bring about? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says: 'Let the strong opt out of the arbitration system.' What happens if the strong were to opt out? The strong unions and the strong companies would say: 'Yes, we do not want the sensible, egalitarian policies of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We want to exercise our strength in the market'. What would that mean? It would mean that those with strength and capacity would burst out with high wages. But what would happen in those circumstances is that they would take the weak with them. So the level of wages would be significantly higher than it otherwise would be. That is why the honourable member for Balaclava says: 'You are talking nonsense'. The honourable member for Balaclava is right. If the Leader of the Opposition had the beginning of strength of leadership in him he would knock the heads of the members of the Opposition together-although it would not make much noise if he did it with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition- and say: 'Stop your fighting. Get us a wages policy which is related to the realities of this country, as is the wages policy of this Government.' Mr ANTHONY —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that both Mr Young and Mr Combe were found by Mr Justice Hope to have acted improperly and in view of the fact that Mr Young is to be rewarded for his behaviour by being promoted back into the Cabinet, I ask the Prime Minister: Does he see any conflict between the Government's treatment of Mr Young and Mr Combe? Mr HAWKE —The answer is no. What, of course, has come through crystal clear yesterday and today is that the Opposition cannot point one word at this Government in regard to the conduct of this matter because, as distinct from the Opposition, the Government accepts the findings of the Royal Commissioner whom we appointed. When the Royal Commissioner brings down a finding the Government does not try to shoot him down in flames as the Opposition tried to do with Mr Justice Woodward. Those findings are crystal clear. Those findings reveal that in every respect the Government's handling of this matter was right. Let us consider Mr Combe, who is included in the question. The report of the Royal Commissioner states that everything we did in relation to Mr Combe was done properly. I remind the House and the people of this country that the difficulty that this Government and I, as Prime Minister, had in handling Mr Combe's interest was as a result of the previous Government's deliberate refusal in 1979 to include in the legislation a provision which would have covered Mr Combe's situation. The then Labor Opposition pleaded and pleaded with the previous Government in this House and in the Senate that it should include in the legislation provisions which would cover the circumstances of Mr Combe. But because it was then openly, as it is now covertly, totally uninterested in the civil liberties of anyone in this country the previous Government refused to include in the legislation provisions which would have covered Mr Combe. In the absence of provisions which the previous Government refused to include in the legislation we had to operate accordingly. What did the Royal Commissioner find? He found that in every respect we did everything we could to protect the interests of Mr Combe. Why were we not able finally to protect Mr Combe? It was because the Opposition would not abide by the very basic principles that the Royal Commissioner laid down. I shall remind the House of what the Royal Commissioner said. Mr Sinclair —Why did you welsh on your mates? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party is becoming repetitive. I ask him to cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —The Opposition obviously does not want to hear us, but we will be heard. What did the Royal Commissioner say about what should be the appropriate standards of conduct? I shall read from paragraph 3.19 of the report. If the Opposition had any shred of decency it would take note of what the Royal Commissioner said. I shall read the last sentence of paragraph 3.19. The Opposition should read it, remember it and act according to it. This is what Mr Justice Hope said: Matters of national security ought to transcend party political considerations and should seldom be allowed to become subjects for partisan controversy. Because the Opposition did not have the beginning of an understanding of that fundamental precept, after all we had done to protect Mr Combe, Opposition members could not help themselves; they came in here with their orchestrated set of questions-first the honourable member for Warringah, then the honourable member for Kooyong and then the right honourable member for New England. Then they deliberately said: 'We will ensure that we will expose publicly the relationship between Mr Combe and Mr Ivanov'. They are the ones who trampled on the civil liberties of Mr Combe in 1979. They trampled on his rights in this House. The Royal Commission found that we did everything we possibly could to protect those interests, and have so acted. Mr STAPLES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs seen the reports in today's Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age in which the Independent Teachers Federation of Australia supported the broad thrust of the Government's funding policy of need based on a new community standards model and also the Federation's criticism of the 'misrepresentation of the current funding guidelines by extremists like those at Monday night's Malvern Town Hall meeting'? Has the Government any information about the groups who are organising meetings such as the one held on Monday? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Indeed my attention has been drawn to the articles to which he referred. Of course it ought to be remembered that the remarks that were quoted were from an organisation representing teachers in non-government schools. They are not members of an organisation representing government schools, who are so often quoted in this House by members of the Opposition. The article in the Age states: Teachers in private schools have officially declared support for the Federal Government's needs-based policy on financing private schools. The president of the Independent Teachers Federation of Australia, Mr Michael Raper, said yesterday that a new policy adopted by the federation's national executive last weekend 'supported the broad thrust of the Federal Government's funding policy'. He said: 'We have rejected any notion of an integrated private public school system, but support the Government in the breaking of the nexus formula the federation wants schools funded on the basis of their need measured on a new community standards model. 'Calls for the end of State aid are totally irresponsible. But so too is the misrepresentation of the current funding guidelines by extremists like those at Monday night's Malvern town hall meeting. It is important to recognise that some balance is being introduced into this very important debate. What this Government is concerned about, and of course what the former Government was totally uninterested in, is providing an equal opportunity for all children in Australia to have the best possible education that this country can afford. The intervention of this organisation in this totally responsible, totally non-hysterical way is an important contribution to the debate. It draws attention to those who were behind the meeting at the Malvern Town Hall. Let me first indicate that the venue of the meeting was in itself very interesting. Honourable members recall that the last time we heard of the Malvern Town Hall was when the Liberal Party launched its last Federal campaign. Honourable members will know that that was the beginning of the end for someone to whom the Leader of the Opposition now refers as person Y from down in the country. We can see that the Malvern Town Hall has become the graveyard of conservative politics. A number of people and organisations involved in the organisation of that meeting. One, of course, was the Democratic Labor Party. The DLP has returned to the graveyard. Of course another organisation which made its debut at the Malvern Town Hall has the extraordinary name of DONGS-the Committee for the Defence of Non-Government Schools. I am sure we can think of a number of other more illustrative acronyms just by adding an initial here or there. It is important that this kind of campaign is exposed for what it really is. This is a campaign of extremists. It is an hysterical campaign which refuses to recognise that the vast majority of kids at non-government schools will do better under the policies of this Government than they did under the policies of the last Government. People in non-government schools are sick and tired of the fact that the gap between the richest and the poorest non-government schools got wider and wider under the policies of the former Government. We are concerned with narrowing that gap and closing it as soon as we possibly can. When members of the Liberal Party decide to confront this issue honestly they will recognise that by exciting this campaign they are doing an enormous disservice to the parents and children in this country. Mr Wilson —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister, in answering that question, read from a document. Can that document be tabled? Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister reading from a document? Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Pursuant to the Standing Orders I am required to ask questions of the Minister. Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr Dawkins —Yes, I quoted from a document, and the House is welcome to it. Mr SPEAKER —Is the document confidential? Mr Dawkins —No. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister has tabled the document. Mr HODGMAN —Has the Prime Minister's attention been personally drawn to the provisions of section 6 of the Crimes Act 1914 dealing with accessories after the fact, for which offence the penalty is two years imprisonment and, under the Constitution, automatic forfeiture of one's parliamentary seat? Will the Prime Minister now publicly admit that he and the Attorney-General, jointly and severally, have assisted the honourable member for Port Adelaide, knowing that the honourable member fulfils each of the criteria referred to- Dr Klugman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As I understand it, questions are not to deal with legal opinion. It is bad enough for the honourable member for Denison to give bad legal opinions. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have been bending my mind to whether it is a matter that should be dealt with by substantive motion, but I will allow the honourable member to continue his question and make a judgment then. Mr HODGMAN —Will the Prime Minister now admit that he and the Attorney-General, jointly and severally, have assisted the honourable member for Port Adelaide, knowing that the honourable member fulfils each of the criteria referred to by Mr Justice Hope in paragraph 7.32 of the Royal Commissioner's report with reference to section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act, by deciding that, notwithstanding the clear and express terms of the law, the honourable member for Port Adelaide will not be prosecuted? Mr HAWKE —May I give a joint and several answer. No, no. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Will the Minister for Health inform the House of progress made in relation to the introduction of Medicare? Will he also inform the House of arrangements for insurance cover for private hospitals? Dr BLEWETT —In responding to the question from the honourable member for McMillan I can say only that the Government is much heartened by the quite splendid response we have had to the Medicare enrolment campaign. Some two and a half million Australians, mostly family applicants, have already made Medicare applications to the Health Insurance Commission. Of those two and a half million applicants, some one and a half million have been already processed and cards supplied. About one million applications are being processed at this time. In addition, some 900,000 cards have been issued directly to Medibank Private members and another 800,000 cards have been distributed directly to social security beneficiaries. This means that well over half the family units in this country are now enrolled in Medicare. I think that is some judgment the Australian people have made about the Medicare campaign. In relation to the other aspects of the question asked by the honourable member for McMillan, let me say that within the next 10 days the private insurance companies will be issuing their contribution rates for private hospital insurance. As I understand it, there are likely to be at least two or three rates-a basic rate and rates for various other levels of private hospital cover. We have also completed the initial categorisation of all private hospitals. Again, within the next 10 days all private hospitals will be informed of that categorisation. Mr STEELE HALL —I ask the Prime Minister: In view of Mr Justice Hope's findings that there was a real risk that significant damage could have resulted from the disclosures made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide and that it should have been apparent to Mr Young that he should not have made the disclosures, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not place the honourable member where his lack of discretion on national security matters can be exhibited again? In particular, will he assure the House that the honourable member for Port Adelaide will not be given responsibility for the Australian Federal Police and the register of lobbyists and will not become a member of the National and International Security Committee? Mr HAWKE —It seems to me an eminently sensible course of action, if one is looking for advice as to what should properly be done in respect of the allocation of portfolios and whether people are in and out of portfolios, that one should not go to a source which has pre-eminently displayed over the years a complete lack of responsibility for any proper principles. The current Opposition, when in government, displayed an absolute contempt for appropriate principles under the Westminster system. Therefore any suggestion, explicit or implicit, from that Opposition as to how I should conduct myself or what decisions I should make will be rejected with the contempt it deserves. Mr REEVES —Will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs advise the House when he expects to receive the report on the review of the Aboriginal Land Rights ( Northern Territory) Act, which is being undertaken by His Honour Mr Justice Toohey? Mr HOLDING —Honourable members will be interested to know that I received Mr Justice Toohey's report on Monday, 5 December. It is a very extensive report of approximately 370 pages and represents a major effort on the part of His Honour and his assistants. It is to their credit that such an extensive report has been completed within a very short period. I have indicated on previous occasions that it is my intention to make public the report and its recommendations so that those directly affected by it, particularly those people living in the Northern Territory, will have an opportunity to make comment upon the contents of the report prior to this Government taking any decisions in relation to those recommendations. Accordingly, I have issued directions that the report be printed as a matter of urgency. I hope possibly to have it tabled tomorrow. As soon as sufficient copies are available I will ensure that the honourable member for the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the Aboriginal land councils, and other organisations and individuals who made submissions to Mr Justice Toohey receive copies of the printed report. I expect such copies to be available before the end of the month. I have also asked that sufficient copies be printed to permit interested members of the general public to obtain copies as well. I will not go into all the detail of the report other than to say it covers in a very principled way and outlines many of the basic problems of interpretation that have been thrown up in respect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. I believe the recommendations made by His Honour will provide a very important contribution to the continuing debate on the improvement of that legislation. Mr COLEMAN —I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls that important among the considerations he raised yesterday to support the promotion of the honourable member for Port Adelaide were that, firstly, he is 'a good man who has made a mistake which he now regrets'; secondly, 'I do not suggest that even I can fully understand what he and his family have suffered'; and thirdly, 'he has spent thirty years working in and for the Labor movement'. If he does recall saying that, does he also believe that Mr Combe is 'a good man', that 'he and his family have suffered' grievously, and that he has spent many years 'working in and for the Labor movement'? If so, can he inform the House whether he will also be seeking a promotion for Mr David Combe? Mr HAWKE —The answers to those two questions are very simple. The answer to the first question is yes. In regard to the second question, the same thing has happened. There has not been a promotion of the honourable member for Port Adelaide; there has been a return to his previous position. In respect of Mr Combe exactly the same thing applies. What has happened is that in the statement I made I said that the Royal Commissioner has made it quite clear that, in relation to the considerations he found to be appropriate and to justify the decision we took that Mr Combe's consultancy services should not be available to Ministers, that correct decision no longer has the grounds to sustain it and, therefore, should no longer apply. So in the same way, Mr Combe's previous position has been restored. That ground no longer applies. There is now no bar upon Ministers, if they so desire, using the consultancy services of Mr Combe. So there has thus been a restoration of the pre-existing position in regard to the relationship between this Government and Mr Combe. May I once again dispose of the unbridled hypocrisy of the people on the other side of the House. They have historically had no interest in the question of civil liberties-none at all-generally or in regard to Mr Combe in particular. I repeat to this House and to the people of this country: In 1979 those opposite had a specific opportunity of responding to the concern of the then Labor Opposition to include in the legislation provisions which would cover a case like Combe. It was pleaded by the then Opposition that that should be included. Because members of the present Opposition never had any interest in civil liberties they refused to include that. So we had to operate in those circumstances. The side of the House which deliberately set about trying to intrude upon the civil liberties of Mr Combe was the Opposition when, with that orchestrated set of questions, it deliberately introduced into the public domain the relationship between Combe and Ivanov. Those opposite are the guilty ones and they will be adjudged guilty. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Several non-profit , private hospitals in New South Wales cater for the terminally ill often referred from public hospitals may be unable to operate when Medicare commences. Will the Minister ensure that these hospitals, including St John of God, Burwood , are not prejudiced by the introduction of Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —The Government has decided to categorise private hospitals, as has been explained fully to the House, so that the costs of private hospitals could be related very much to their benefit payments. The result of that has been a categorisation of all private hospitals into three categories which we believe are fairly based on their costs. However, it has been recognised that there will need to be an examination of the categorisation of some psychiatric hospitals and some particular groups of private hospitals. In the categorisation process we have provided two means of appeal. First of all, the private hospitals may approach the State Ministers for Health, because they realise the full pattern of the hospitals systems in their States, or, secondly, they may appeal to the appeal mechanisms provided for categorisation. I am sure that, given the fact that, firstly, we have based these categorisations on the cost of hospitals and, secondly, forms of appeal have been provided, no private hospital in this country need fear these problems under Medicare. Mr PEACOCK —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister and his staff have for some months been backgrounding senior members of the media that the honourable member for Port Adelaide should not return to the Ministry in the near future and that he should not be actively lobbying for his early return? If so, what has caused the Prime Minister to alter his views on the issue? Mr HAWKE —I am not aware that what my staff does or does not do falls within ministerial responsibility for answering questions in this House, but I am more than happy to address myself to the substance of the Leader of the Opposition's question. As with his staff, if I may say so, many interesting things are said, some of which would upset him if he knew about them. But being the total gentleman I am, I shall not share them with the House, any more than I would share with the House some of the things that his own members have been saying about him, because that would not be fair either. Obviously in this whole area a lot of discussions have been going on. Let me make it quite clear that, in the process of considering the appropriate course of action, I have considered a number of alternatives. I do not deny that; of course, I have considered a number of alternatives. Mr Peacock —The answer is yes, is it? Mr HAWKE —We have reached the position where members of the Opposition can ask the questions and give their own answers; and the answers will be about as idiotic as the questions when they come from that side of the House. The question obviously has exercised my mind as to what should be the appropriate course of action. There are arguments which could justify this course or that course, and in respect of each possible course of action there are balancing considerations. In respect of the proposition that has been put explicitly and implicitly that I did not act as a free agent in the final decision and that I was the captive of Caucus, I simply ask the Leader of the Opposition and others to look at the record. I am not directed to by Caucus. That is a matter of record. If indeed I understand the position put at times by certain members of the Caucus, Mr Young would have been back in the Ministry long ago. I did not think that was correct, and it has not happened. In the balance of considerations and taking everything into account, I believe I have made the correct decision. It has been supported by my Cabinet and I believe it will be supported not by part of the Caucus but by the whole of the Caucus. I believe members of the Caucus will do that because they believe, like I do, that the appropriate balance of considerations should lead to that result. Finally, an area in this matter not within the domain of Caucus at all is the question of whether Mr Young should go back into the Cabinet or not. That is a matter for myself in consultation with my three fellow leaders. I have indicated what I thing should happen. I believe my fellow leaders will support me. There is not the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that the decision that has been taken in this regard does not represent what I finally believe is the correct answer. That belief of mine is shared by my Cabinet and I believe it will be unanimously supported by my Caucus. Mr GAYLER —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the growing concern within the tobacco industry of the loss of quota of tobacco growers throughout the country, particularly in the Dimbulah and Mareeba districts? What steps have been taken by the Minister to continue the very good relationship between this Government and the tobacco industry? Mr KERIN —I am well aware of the concern of the Australian tobacco growing industry about the loss of quota. This has been caused by a few factors. Firstly , declining amounts of tobacco are now being consumed in Australia. Secondly, in the Industries Assistance Commission's report and the recommendations that were agreed to by the past Government and this Government a discipline has been put on the tobacco industry in as much as the level of stock held by the manufacturers is to go down from 15 or 16 months to 12 or 13 months. But the most complicating thing is the fact that there is a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade binding with respect to tobacco and tobacco imports. By and large the Australian tobacco industry is fixed at 50 per cent of Australian consumption, but there is an additional 7 per cent by voluntary agreement with the manufacturers and the other countries to which the binding relates. The problem of getting the tobacco released from the binding will have to be taken up in GATT. I recently wrote to the Minister for Trade, and I had my Department analyse how that GATT binding could be lifted. It is pretty clear that the previous Government sold out that option well and thoroughly. To try to renegotiate now through the GATT would take at least another full round of multilateral trade negotiations, a process of four or five years. So that option has been withdrawn . The other thing we can do is appeal to the manufacturers and have some discusion with them on whether they can come back on the agreement that has been put into place in respect of stock holdings. I am having a meeting with the tobacco manufacturers in the next few weeks. The honourable member for Leichhardt has taken me up to the Mareeba tableland several times. I almost live there now. I fully understand his concern. I take this opportunity to thank him for all the work he is doing on behalf of the Australian tobacco producers. Mr HUNT —I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls the Attorney-General's opinion that, if Mr Walsh's account were to prevail, 'as a matter of law' it is possible that an offence may have been committed under the Crimes Act? Now that Mr Justice Hope has ruled in favour of Mr Walsh's account, will the Prime Minister now refer this matter to the Attorney-General for his further consideration? Does the Prime Minister agree that the Government would be placing the honourable member for Port Adelaide above the law if the matter were not now referred to the Attorney-General for further consideration? Mr HAWKE —I always respect questions coming from the honourable member for Gwydir . The answer to his first question is no. The answer to his second question is no. But let me add to my answer to the second question. The whole question of Mr Young's actions vis-a-vis the Crimes Act has been considered by the Attorney- General. He has made his decision, of which the honourable member is aware. This matter was before the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and the Royal Commissioner had the opportunity of taking a number of courses of action. I think the honourable member will agree with me that the course of action which the Royal Commissioner has taken and what he has said about this matter does not require or call for any further action. He has addressed himself to the question of the Crimes Act and Mr Young. I say to the honourable member, as I know he is interested to hear what I have to say on this matter, that if the Royal Commissioner had made such a recommendation specifically-he had full opportunity to do so-that would have been something that we obviously would have had to take into account. The honourable member will realise that- Mr Porter —You are not- Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Gwydir, who is seated behind the honourable member who just interjected, is asking him to shut up because he wants to hear the answer. Mr Porter —Yes, but he wants the right answer. Mr HAWKE —He is asking that of the honourable member who is interjecting. The honourable member might show his fellow member some courtesy by doing what he wants; that is, to be quiet so that he can hear. The Royal Commissioner had an opportunity to do more. He did not do it. If he had, obviously we would have had to take that into account. He did not. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My question is directed to the Treasurer. In the light of recent trends in the bonds on the Australian market as well as reduction in the rates of Aussie bonds, does the Treasurer see any capacity for bringing the interest rates on housing loans of the private banks such as Westpac Banking Corporation and the ANZ Banking Group Ltd into line with those rates charged by the State banks, the building societies and the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia? Mr KEATING —I am not in the business of speculating on interest rates. I am not prepared to speculate about them. But I can observe that the Government has been encouraged by the recent fall in interest rates which was occasioned in the last bond tender. As I recounted to the House last week, when the Opposition had a burst of interest in the economy, interest rates at the short end of the market, treasury bonds, had fallen by 3 1/2 per cent since 1 July and by about 2 1/2 per cent at the long end of the market. I noticed also this week that a number of the trading banks have reduced their prime indicator rates. If I recall correctly, the Commonwealth Trading Bank has reduced its prime indicator rates to 12.5 per cent and Westpac to 12.75 per cent. I would need to check whether I am precise in respect of the figures for each institution. But there is a half a per cent decline. With the general level of rates declining, where housing rates will go will be an issue. The honourable member correctly identified in his question that there has been some stickiness on housing interest rates. We saw a decline some time ago in the Commonwealth Bank of a half per cent and a lot of the other State banks followed suit. The two institutions mentioned by the honourable member did not follow suit because, in their view, their deposit rates had fallen and they were already having difficulty in handling the demands for housing finance. Suffice to say that I expect that a further decline in inflation, which I think we will see as the December quarter statistics come out, could underpin further declines in interest rates. I also observe that the Government has accomplished quite a large proportion of its bond selling task within the first half of the finance year. I might say, however, that that task would now be complete had we not had substantial capital inflow during the course of the year and, indeed, some inflow in the last week. That will mean that the Government will have to continue its bond selling operations into the second half of the year. But again the judgment has been all along that we can do so simultaneously with falls in interest rates. The terms of the honourable gentleman's question will be a matter for the two institutions he mentioned, the ANZ Bank and Westpac. They, along with other banks, will make their own judgments about their deposit rates, whether their lending rates should fall and whether they can see their housing rates respond to the general decline in interest rates. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence. I wish to inform the House that this morning an Australian Army Pilatus Porter aircraft crashed and the pilot was killed. I have no further details at this stage but I think the House should be fully informed. Mr McVeigh —Where was it based? Mr SPEAKER —Would the Minister please answer the interjector? Mr SCHOLES —Oakey. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 58 of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975, I present the Australian Trade Union Training Authority annual report for 1982-83. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present a statement on issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for October 1983. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 49 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, I present the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Annual report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975, I present the Pig Meat Promotion Committee eighth annual report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the summary of resolutions and recommendations of the 20th meeting of the Australian Forestry Council held in Melbourne on 6 June 1983. Mr MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Transport annual report for 1982-83. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 32 of the Albury- Wodonga Development Act 1973, I present the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation annual report for 1982-83. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission's interim report on industrial overalls. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Administrative Services annual report for 1982-83. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967, I present the Australian Tourist Commission Annual Report 1982-83, and commend it to every member. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members I present the social welfare policy secretariat annual report for 1982- 83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to sub- section 36 (3) of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, I present the report on radiation safety standards, practices and procedures for uranium mill product drying and packing operations conducted by ERA Ltd, at Jabiru, Northern Territory. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present a report on the environmental implications of three synthetic liquid fuel technologies. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 24 (3) of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, I present the National Capital Development Commission annual report for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 33 (4) of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962, I present the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority annual report for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the 1982-83 annual report of Norfolk Island. Mr HAND(Melbourne) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAND —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne may proceed. Mr Sinclair —They said you were on the right wing, did they? Mr HAND —What was that? I did not hear the honourable member. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should get on with his personal explanation and ignore interjections. Mr HAND —On page 3273 of yesterday's Hansard during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) an interjection was recorded under my name. The interjection was: 'Right, dead right'. That is not correct. I did not make that remark. On page 3274 the Leader of the Opposition states: 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. I find these remarks totally offensive. I have no allegiances to outside powers. I am as loyal an Australian citizen as the Leader of the Opposition. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to show some courage, refute those accusations and withdraw them. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —I do. I refer to a report in the Canberra Times of Wednesday, 7 December, under the heading 'Senate told of tenders' insecurity', where some comments are made about a speech I made in the House yesterday on pages 3314 to 3316 of Hansard relating to the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The article in the newspaper states: . . . Mr Connolly . . . said last night a judicial inquiry should be held to clear the names of members of the committee . . . That is not what was said. I was referring to members of the Board of the CCDA, not the members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, which is an important difference. Further in the same article, with reference to a Press release put out by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), he accused me of climbing the heights of 'political opportunism' in relation to the comments I made in the House and in my subsequent Press release. I emphasised, for the benefit of the House, that I reject this allegation absolutely. I made the point earlier and I made it again last night. Mr Uren —I raise a point of order. There is no misrepresentation here. It is a very accurate description of the honourable member's remarks. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister had his chance in the debate last night and he did not take the opportunity. He has gone against three Ministers of his own Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that he has gone beyond a personal explanation. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members I present a special report by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation into the search and rescue action associated with the ditching of Rockwell 685 aircraft, VH-WJC, in Bass Strait on 17 July 1983. I seek leave to made a statement relating to the report. Leave granted. Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the House. As honourable members will recall, at about five past three on the afternoon of 17 July, the Rockwell 685, a twin-engine light aircraft, with two people on board, ditched in Bass Strait approximately 35 nautical miles south of Wilson's Promontory. My Department's search and rescue organisation is geared to respond to any aviation emergency, and, as happened in this case, procedures were initiated immediately the aircraft's plight became known. Some 60 minutes later, a person in a lifejacket was sighted by a searching aircraft. Rescue efforts were unsuccessful and contact with the person in the water was lost about 80 minutes after the sighting. Neither occupant of the aircraft has been found and the wreckage of the aircraft has not been recovered. At the time, and in the aftermath of this accident, much criticism was directed at my Department's search and rescue action and concern was voiced about the effectiveness of the procedures should a similar situation arise involving an airline aircraft. As a result of those representations, and in the public interest, I directed on 18 July, that my Department's search and rescue organisation report on the manner in which the operation has been conducted. After studying that report which contained a chronological account of events, I released it for public information on 4 August. As I stated in a news release on that day, some aspects of the rescue operations, including back-up aircraft for the dropping of survival equipment, needed further investigation. I therefore called for a comprehensive and separate investigation by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation into all facets of the search and rescue action. I should add that this was in addition to the investigation which the Bureau is currently conducting into the cause of the accident itself. My decision to have the Bureau conduct the separate investigation into the search and rescue operation was based on the fact that it is an expert investigating authority independent of my Department's operational divisions. In addition, the Bureau reports directly to me and to the Secretary of my Department. The report I am presenting is an impartial study of the Bass Strait search and rescue action from the first intimation of an emergency in the aircraft until the search for survivors was called off at 7 o'clock on the evening of 19 July. The Bureau's report indicates some personnel and system deficiencies relating to the rescue operation and these are detailed in this document. Nevertheless, the investigation reached the important conclusion that no evidence was found of any negligence, failure to accept responsibility, or knowing lack of co-operation by anyone involved in the search and rescue action. There is no doubt that every person who took part in the Bass Strait operation experienced deep personal disappointment and sorrow that the rescue action failed to achieve its goal. While the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation was conducting its investigation an in-depth examination of the factors involved was also carried out within the Department in order to identify any weaknesses in the action and in the facilities that were available at the time. This is a standard procedure. The end of a search and rescue action does not merely mean cleaning up the Rescue Co -ordination Centre and locking the door until the next emergency occurs. That would indicate a complacency which has no place in vital lifesaving operations. My Department's search and rescue organisation is dedicated to providing an emergency service of the highest order-a level which the air travelling public expects and to which it is entitled. To ensure that Australia maintains its high reputation for search and rescue efficiency, I believe that the time is right for a review of search and rescue arrangements for civil aviation. I have, therefore, appointed an expert three- man committee of review to examine and report on these arrangements and to recommend any changes considered necessary. The committee will be headed by Mr R . M. Whitecross, a former Assistant Secretary, Air Traffic Services, with my Department. Mr Whitecross, who retired in May this year, had a great deal of experience in search and rescue and in aircraft accident investigation in the course of his 35-year career in civil aviation. The other members of the committee are: Mr A. L. Bedsor, a widely experienced businessman, aircraft owner and skilled pilot, and a past member of the Executive of the General Aviation Association, and Wing Commander L. A. Naylor of the Royal Australian Air Force, an expert in military search and rescue operations. Broadly, the committee has been asked to examine and report on the suitability of the existing search and rescue arrangements for civil aircraft in the Australian area of responsibility including the allocation of responsibilities between various departments and authorities. The committee will begin its work immediately and I expect to have its report and recommendations in about three months. Our aviation search and rescue system has long been held in high regard both here and overseas, so much so that my Department's search and rescue training courses are used for training search and rescue mission co-ordinators not only from other Australian emergency services but also from countries in Africa, South East Asia and the South Pacific area. In conclusion, I wish to impress upon honourable members that it is my intention that the high standard of our search and rescue capabilities will be maintained. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —by leave-An examination of the report of the Bureau of Air Safety leaves one with a deep sense of unease, doubts as to its adequacy and as to the willingness of those who compiled it to sheet home responsibility and concern at the findings and the unwillingness, so it seems, to make findings on vital issues. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) in his statement effectively quoted from finding 4.11, which states: No evidence was found of any negligence, failure to accept responsibility or knowing lack of co-operation on the part of any person engaged in the SAR- That is, search and air rescue- action. Finding 4.14, the last finding, which appears on the same page, reads: Only one person was sighted in the water. Had the available resources been employed in a more effective manner, his rescue may have been successful. It is difficult on the face of things to reconcile those two findings but a bare statement of the chronology of events shows that on the day in question, 17 July , when the temperature of the waters of Bass Strait was 12 or 13 degrees Celsius and when a person's chance of survival in those waters was marginal after 1.5 hours, a mayday call was heard. Emergency procedures were immediately initiated and some 59 minutes later a survivor was sighted in a life jacket. He was monitored, he was watched, and the last sighting was at 1713 hours, some two hours 20 minutes later. There are two main phases in the operation-first, the provision of support and, secondly, attempts to rescue. The support provisions centred mainly about proposals to drop a life raft, which required a plane specially fitted for that purpose and an experienced dropmaster. Three planes were chosen. The first plane , it turned out, was quite unsuitable for the purposes for which it was chosen. The second plane did not complete the mission it started upon because, after modifications, the pilot determined that he was not happy to fly the aircraft with the door off, which was necessary for the purposes of dropping a life raft. The third plane was also unsuitable for the purposes for which it was required. It was not known that either the first plane or the third plane was unsuitable- reasons are given, but time does not permit one to go into them-but the decisions taken were critical decisions. There was no way in which two of the planes could be used for the purposes for which they were intended at the time. What were the other options? The other option referred to in relation to the rescue of the survivor was the use of helicopters. This option was examined and one sees that for that purpose, apparently-it appears to be quite clear- helicopters were overlooked and in the course of the attempt to recover the survivor of the plane there was misunderstanding as to the whereabouts of one of the helicopters which was sought to be used. The report states: Appendix IV contains an analysis of possible rescue missions for a number of helicopters in the southern Victorian area, including those above-- certain helicopters are mentioned in the report-- compared with the actual flights- those which took place. It continues: although there is no certainty that the projected missions would in practice have been flown as shown, it gives a useful comparison of alternative actions and indicates the timely use of one of the Longford helicopters- that is, helicopters from Longford-- might have resulted in successful rescue action. The decision to not check the availability of rescue helicopters other than- Reference is made to certain rescue helicopters which were checked upon-- . . . is considered to have been an error of judgement. That was indeed a very major error of judgment. When one looks at Appendix IV it becomes apparent that timely use of existing helicopters in southern Victoria with capacities to winch down somebody to assist the survivor who had been sighted may have resulted in the person being saved. It is not good enough simply to say that this was an error of judgment, nor is it good enough to seek to explain what took place on the basis that those concerned were under pressure , as the report states. Of course those who are concerned in exercises of this kind are under very great pressure, but that is not a sufficient answer. In support of the finding that there was no negligence the report states in finding 4.12: The deficiencies in performance which occurred were the result of working under pressure. That is the purpose for which these exercises, these operations, are established . One cannot be very happy with a departmental report which identifies performance deficiencies, systems deficiencies, errors in judgment and failure to pursue options, and which concludes that notwithstanding these matters there was no negligence. I am not in a position to assert that there was negligence, and I know, of course, that all those concerned would have done their utmost, but one can only be left with the most severe concern, the most deep unease, as to the procedures which were followed-their sufficiency and the way in which they were implemented in this case. As I have said, there are grave questions of system deficiencies and questions of fundamental errors in performance which may have caused this man's life to be lost-fatal errors. Explanations are given which, quite frankly, are sometimes speculative and sometimes do not amount to more than the expression of possible reasons why certain courses of conduct were followed. That is not good enough. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with Bass Strait, the most dangerous area of water in the southern part of Australia, which is overflown every day, and bearing in mind the short survival time for anyone who is lost in those waters in the middle of winter, as any yachtsman will tell us, I propose first of all that there should be a full board of accident inquiry into this matter. I propose that the committee to which the Minister referred in his statement and which he has established should sit in public so that the public has a capacity to judge the efficiency of the procedures as they are implemented and, generally speaking, the efficiencies of search and air rescue procedures in this country, particularly those which relate to Bass Strait. It is not simply a question of two lives being lost, sad enough though that is; the question is: Could a life have been saved and if the same thing happens again what will be the result? 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)(3.10) —The Government has to come to terms with reality- Motion (by Mr West) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (The Chairman-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. 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. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. 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. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.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.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steel Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Jones, Barry Street, A. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson) —I present the 222nd report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave- proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(3.20) —I now turn to the principal clauses of the Bill. Clause 2 provides that the amending Act shall come into operation on the twenty-eighth day after the date of royal assent, except certain specified clauses relating to the status of British subject in Australia which will come into force on a date to be proclaimed. This second commencement day is necessary to allow time for consequential amendments to be made to other legislation where the status of British subject is employed. Clause 4 amends section 5 to effect, amongst other things, the removal of all discriminations and to insert some new interpretation provisions. Honourable members will notice that, unlike the existing definition of 'responsible parent' , which is discriminatory on the basis of sex, this phrase will mean a person who is a natural parent of a child, or who, by reason of adoption, operation of law or a court order, has guardianship or custody of the child whether jointly or otherwise. In line with recent advances in the medical field, new sections 5 (6), 5 (7) and 5 (8) are inserted to deem a child born to a woman as a result of artificial insemination or the implantation of an embryo in her body to be the child of her and her husband where the medical procedure was carried out with the husband's consent. The existing definition of 'alien', which is discriminatory on the grounds of nationality and country of birth, is also being repealed. Consequential amendments are made throughout the Act as a result of the removal of these discriminations. Clause 5 inserts new section 5A to give effect to government policy under which generally only permanent and lawful residents are eligible to apply for citizenship. A permanent resident for the purposes of citizenship is defined to mean a person whose continued presence in Australia is not subject to any limitation as to the time imposed by law, who is not a prohibited immigrant before the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983, or is not a prohibited non-citizen after the commencement of that Act, and is not a person included in a class of persons exempt from the requirement of entry permit under section 8 of the Migration Act 1958, such as foreign diplomats and consular officials. Permanent residents who are temporarily absent from Australia are not going to lose their status if they are holders of a return endorsement which remains in force. Under the Migration Act, there is provision to exempt certain categories of people from the requirement of an entry permit upon entry to Australia, including citizens of New Zealand. The proposed amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act will exclude all these exempt categories from being eligible for citizenship in terms of residential requirements. Such an exclusion would be anomalous and the Bill therefore under new section 5A (2) will empower the Minister to declare certain categories of lawful residents to be permanent residents for the purposes of citizenship. The major group to be covered by this provision would be citizens of New Zealand. When the Act is amended, a person may acquire Australian citizenship by birth, by adoption, by descent or by grant . Clause 9 amends existing section 10 relating to citizenship by birth in Australia. At present, section 10 provides that persons born in Australia are Australian citizens by birth, unless at the time of birth the father was a diplomat, a consular official or a foreign country or an enemy alien. This provision does not apply when the mother was in one of those categories. The amendments will remove this discrimination and provide that, where a parent of the person was a diplomat, consular officer or enemy alien at the time of that person's birth, the person will nevertheless be an Australian citizen by birth if the other parent was an Australian citizen, a permanent resident, or a permanent resident who was not himself or herself an enemy alien. Clause 10 repeals section 11 on citizenship by descent, and substitutes new section 10A on citizenship by adoption and new section 10B on citizenship by descent. New section 10A will provide that a person who is present in Australia as a permanent resident and is adopted in Australia by an Australian citizen is an Australian citizen by adoption. At present, a person in this situation may acquire Australian citizenship only by grant. The current Act provides for a child born overseas to an Australian citizen to acquire an Australian citizenship only if registered at an Australian consulate within five years of birth, or within some further period that the Minister might allow. Under new section 10B, persons born to Australian citizens overseas may acquire Australian citizenship by descent, if their names are registered at an Australian consulate within 18 years after birth, and, where the person's Australian parent had himself or herself acquired Australian citizenship by descent, there will be an additional requirement that the parent was lawfully present in Australia for at least two years at any time before the registration. This additional requirement serves to emphasise the association with Australia. Of course, where the failure of meeting one or both requirements of new section 10B would render the person stateless, the person will be registered as an Australian citizen by descent, because of Australia's international obligations to prevent statelessness. I refer honourable members to clause 20. The Bill also contains in clause 41 (5) a transitional provision under which within two years after the commencement of this amending legislation registration of citizenship by descent may be affected according to the old provisions. Clause 11 repeals existing section 13 on declaration of intention to apply for citizenship. This section neither assisted applicants nor contributed to the efficiency of administering the Act. Clause 11 also repeals section 14 on grant of Australian citizenship, and substitutes new sections 13 and 14. I have already highlighted the most important changes which are made to the requirement for citizenship by grant. The full conditions set out in new section 13 (1) are that the Minister must be satisfied that an applicant: Is a permanent resident; has attained the age of 18 years; understands the nature of the application; has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than one year during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of the furnishing of the application ; has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than two years during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of the furnishing of the application; is of good character; possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; has an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and if granted a certificate of Australian citizenship, the applicant is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia, or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. There are of course provisions under section 13 to ease some of the requirements for special cases such as people with physical or mental incapacities, and older people who have difficulties in learning English. For the purpose of computing the aggregate period of an applicant's presence in Australia, the Minister under new section 13 (4): (A) must exclude the applicant's periods of confinement in a prison, except where his conviction was subsequently quashed, or in a psychiatric institution by order of a court; (B) may, at his discretion, treat as a period during which the applicant was present in Australia: A period during which the applicant was a permanent resident but absent overseas while engaging in activities beneficial to Australia; a period prior to the five years during which the applicant was present in Australia, or ordinarily resident in Papua or New Guinea before their independence or in the independent state of Papua New Guinea between 16 September 1975 and 16 September 1978; in case of hardship or disadvantage to an applicant if his application is rejected, the period of his lawful residence in Australia including Norfolk Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, for example as a temporary resident. Existing ministerial discretion to grant citizenship notwithstanding the requirements of section 13 (1) is retained in section 13 (9). The most important of these are powers to grant citizenship to a spouse, widow or widower of an Australian citizen, and to persons under the age of 18 years. New section 13 (11 ) sets out specified situations where during a specified period of time, powers to grant a certificate of citizenship under section 13 are excluded. Clause 11 also inserts new section 14 to enable the Minister to defer consideration of an application for a maximum period of 12 months, where an applicant would be likely to satisfy the requirements of section 13 at a later time. Clause 12 amends section 15 to substitute two new pledges of Australian citizenship for the existing oath or affirmation of allegiance to enable the pledge to be taken either before or after a certificate of citizenship is issued and to require that those who are empowered to administer the pledge are themselves Australian citizens. As I have already stated, applicants can choose a secular-based or a religious-based pledge as set out in Schedule 1. Clause 13 repeals existing section 17 and substitutes new provisions to the effect that a person, being an Australian citizens of 18 years of age, will cease to be an Australian citizen where an act is committed-whether inside or outside Australia, but other than marriage-specifically for the purpose of acquiring a foreign nationality or citizenship. But where that Act was done under duress or unwittingly, clause 17 provides that the person may, at the discretion of the Minister, resume Australian citizenship lost under the new section. Clause 15 amends section 21 on deprivation of citizenship. Under section 21, as to be amended, the Minister will have power to deprive a person of Australian citizenship on the basis of not only conviction under section 50 of the Act, but also of conviction of an offence committed before the grant of a certificate of citizenship for which a sentence carries at least 12 months' imprisonment. The Minister may exercise this power only where he considers that it would be contrary to the public interest for that person to retain Australian citizenship . Clause 15 also inserts an interpretative provision to take into account sub- section 19B (1) of the Crimes Act 1914 on conditional release of offenders without proceeding to conviction. The powers of deprivation of citizenship are made subject to Australia's international obligations to prevent statelessness, to which clause 20 of the Bill gives effect. Clause 16 amends section 23 dealing with children of persons who lose or are deprived of citizenship. Paragraphs 16 (a) to 16 (f) amend sub-sections 23 (1) and (2) of the Act to effect formal amendments and to remove discriminatory references. Paragraph 16 (g) inserts a new sub-section to ensure that a child would not lose Australian citizenship under sub-sections 23 (1) or 23 (2) where another responsible parent of the child is and continues to be an Australian citizen, or, if that other responsible parent dies while an Australian citizen, at any time after the death of that other responsibile parent. The remaining clauses, with the exemption of clause 36, are of a technical nature or consequential upon other amendments. Clause 36 inserts new section 52A into the Act to confer determinative jurisdiction to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review certain categories of decisions on merits under the Act. At present, there is no such right of review. The new approach is consistent with this Government's commitment to protect individuals' right to fair and equitable treatment by government agencies. The AAT review will, in my view, not only enhance the quality of citizenship decisions but also ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done in individual cases. Under new section 52A, the AAT will not only review on merit, but will also have power to substitute its own decision for the decision complained of. The following decisions are subject to this review: Decisions refusing the grant of citizenship under section 13; Decisions under sub-section 23D (1), refusing registration for citizenship purposes, in favour of a person who was born in Australia and who is not and has never been a citizen of any country; Decisions under section 18, refusing renunciation of Australian citizenship, except decisions relating to sub-section 18 (5) which deals with the refusal in time of war; Decisions under sub-section 21 (1) depriving a person of his Australian citizenship, or under sub-section 23 (2) relating to children of persons who are deprived of citizenship; Decisions under section 47 relating to amendments of a certificate of Australian citizenship; Decision under section 23A and 23B relating to resumption of citizenship by children of persons who ceased to be Australian citizens under the repealed Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948-1955; and Decisions under sub-section 23AA (2) refusing resumption of Australian citizenship by persons who lost their Australian citizenship under section 17, which I have referred to above. As only permanent residents are eligible to apply for citizenship under sub- section 13 (1), rights to AAT review of decisions under the sub-section are confined to them. However, any person who is affected by any other decision under the above-mentioned sections is entitled to review by the AAT. New section 52B imposes a duty on the decision-maker to advise the person who is affected by such a decision of that person's right to review by the AAT. Indeed, honourable members will notice that where appropriate throughout the Bill, new provisions are inserted to require decision-makers to notify affected persons of their decision. These include the following new sub-sections: 13 (12) and 14 (3) in clause 11; 21 (3) in clause 15; 23 (4) in clause 16; and 23D (2) in clause 20. Honourable members will also notice that penalties for offences under the Act and regulations, that is to say, section 48, 49, 50 and 53 (J), have been revised to be consistent with the levels of penalty for comparable offences in other legislation of the Commonwealth. We recognise that many of the proposed changes have profound significance for the Australian community and for the States. I therefore propose that this Bill will now be introduced to await debate in the autumn sittings. This will give time for the States and migrant organisations to express their latest views to the Government on the proposed changes. The proposed changes affect almost every aspect of the Act in some way. The requirements to be met for acquiring Australian citizenship both in Australia and overseas will be significantly changed. It is important that these changes be publicised to ensure that they are known to as many people as possible and that people are not adversely affected by not being aware of the new requirement. Sixty thousand dollars has been allocated to produce information brochures and other material setting out the changes. I impress upon honourable members that citizenship plays a key part in the personal and public lives of all Australians. Citizenship brings with it a commitment to Australia on the part of the citizen. It also gives the citizen an entitlement to a range of rights and privileges. Over recent years honourable members on both sides of the House have shown a strong wish to reform the Citizenship Act to overcome anomalies and to remove unreasonable impediments to acquiring Australian citizenship. Both sides of the House have acknowledged that in this way many of those permanent residents of Australia who have not secured Australian citizenship are likely to be encouraged to do so. In the past there has been a high level of bi-partisanship over both the need for reform and the direction which such reforms should take. I appeal to all honourable members to recognise the importance of these measures to Australians and would-be Australians and to consider the amendments to the legislation in a constructive and far-sighted way. We are a most fortunate nation, the only single nationality on earth to possess a complete continent. We have developed a multicultural society to share that continent. But while we encourage individuals within that multicultural society to retain various cultural and social links with countries of origin, we believe that multiculturalism must offer equal oportunity to all within that society. We wish no-one to be disadvantaged or to suffer discrimination as a result of multiculturalism. These long overdue improvements to Australian citizenship legislation which offer encouragement and incentive to those eligible to attain and enjoy the benefits of Australian citizenship are completely commensurate with this philosophy. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(3.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the size of membership of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts from 10 to 15. The need to increase the size was initially raised with the Government by Senator Georges, Chairman of the Committee, and it is supported by the Government. The Committee's role has been expanded in recent years and has resulted in an increased work load, expecially in its examination of the financial affairs of statutory and other government bodies and its examination of reports made to Parliament by the Auditor-General. Over the years, however, no provision has been made for an increase in the size of membership of the Committee and in fact its numbers have not been varied since 1951. The Committee's program is large and deals with complex issues. An increase in membership would allow the establishment of an extra sectional committee, which would enable the Committee to keep pace with reports made by the Auditor-General and to ensure continuing proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill also provides for adjustments in the composition of the membership. Five members are to be appointed by the Senate and 10 members are to be appointed by the House of Representatives, reflecting the relative size of each House. In addition, the quorum requirement will be raised from four to six. The size of sectional committees will not be altered by the proposed amendments. I commend the Bill to the House. Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(3.43) —As Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the Public Accounts Committee Amendment Bill. The Public Accounts Committee is one of the hardest-working committees of the Parliament. It meets on a regular basis two mornings a week and for a full evening each week and meets on a regular basis during non-sitting weeks. The activities and commitment of members of the Public Accounts Committee will be easily seen when it is recognised that 19 reports of the Committee will be presented by the end of this session; that is, the period from 23 August until the date the House rises in early December. The Public Accounts Committee is charged with the responsibility of reporting on the Auditor-General's reports and taking up other matters of concern to the Parliament to ensure that the expenditure of public funds is carried out in accordance with the procedures laid down by various governments and under procedures that are recognised as appropriate to the administration of public funds. During this parliamentary session the Committee laid down four particularly significant reports. The first one to which I refer is the report on income maintenance programs which attempted to assess the processes within welfare departments for the payment of benefits. It was a completely new approach in the examination of welfare and income maintenance payments and is one that will bear close scrutiny by the departments involved. It should lead to a greater efficiency of payment and also to greater effectiveness in reaching the clients of various departments, whether they be age pensioners, people on health benefits or some of the more obscure sectional programs designed to assist small groups of people with particular needs. Another significant report was the report on medical fraud and overservicing. That was a follow-up report detailing the results of previous recommendations of the Committee and the way in which they were dealt with by the Department of Health, the Australian Federal Police and the Attorney-General's Department. Another report was the Finance minute on the report of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority which was tabled yesterday. That report has aroused some comment. I will not contribute to the comment except to say that the reaction of the Minister as reported in today's Press, is an unprecedented reaction to a committee report of this type. The Minister is making futile attempts to justify his position in regard to the appointment of members of the Board of the Authority. His attempt to influence the outcome of this Committee report is most unfortunate. He can quickly resolve this matter by instigating a public inquiry, and that was a major recommendation of the Committee on two occasions. The other significant report is the annual report of the Public Accounts Committee which details all of its activities and lists the reports that have been prepared by the Committee over the years it has been in operation since 1951. This Bill will allow the Committee to extend its work somewhat and will ease the pressure of work that the Committee is currently dealing with. The fact that the Committee has been able to produce 19 reports in the three or four months that the House has been sitting during this session is an indication of how carefully the Committee applies itself to the task that it must undertake on behalf of the Parliament. The amendments will, as the Minister indicated, provide for an additional 10 members of the Committee. That process, as has been indicated, will allow an additional sub- committee to be formed, thereby extending the scope, the range and the promptness with which the Committee can deal with reports. A number of matters have been raised by the Opposition in regard to the increase in the size of the Committee. They are not matters of sufficient importance to make a difference between the parties within the House, but I draw them to the Government's attention just the same. First of all there is the matter of Opposition representation on the Public Accounts Committee. The numbers have changed. The Committee previously comprised six Government members and four Opposition members. The new Committee, though not prescribed in the Bill, will comprise nine members of the Government and six members of the Opposition. The Opposition feels that it is not necessary in a Committee such as this to stick with the exact proportion which was set down as an historic fact, and the workings of the Committee will not be affected if there were to be a ratio of 8:7, for instance. It would be useful to reduce that gap. The other factor that the Opposition wishes to raise is that the increase in a parliamentary committee should not set a precedent for other parliamentary committees. The Opposition rejects the proposed increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. We do not believe that it is useful to increase the size of committees in order to soak up the activities of members of the House of Representatives. In this instance the increase is well warranted. There should not be an ad hoc approach to increasing the size of parliamentary committees. In conclusion I pay tribute to the work done by the staff of the Public Accounts Committee over the last few weeks and indicate that the new arrangements for the working of the Committee, coming under the Department of the House of Representatives, have not been as successful as one would wish. The Committee staff was previously with the Joint House Department. That was a far better arrangement, as far as Committee members can tell. I do not know the basis of the change in departmental responsibility, but there have been delays in staff replacements and secondments. Being a joint standing committee, and the oldest standing committee, it would seem appropriate that the Joint House Department should service the Public Accounts Committee. I support the Bill. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.50) —It is my pleasure to join the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) in supporting this amendment to the Public Accounts Committee Act. As the longest serving member of this Parliament on the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts and, I think, the holder of the record of the longest serving Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, I would like to make a number of observations on this occasion. I think it is worth while recalling that the basis of the Public Accounts Committee is, indeed, a very old one. It was founded in the Gladstonian circle of responsibility which was introduced into the United Kingdom Parliament during the period of Gladstone's very excellent prime ministership, when public administration became not just a part time interest for the rich but rather a serious element of government policy and, therefore, the responsibility of the Parliament. Leading on from that, of course, the Committee was one of the very early features of the Federal Administration when it was established in 1901. The Committee was established in that period. It is also worth noting that during the Depression as an economy measure the Committee was done away with. It was not reintroduced into this Parliament until 1951. Nevertheless, I think it has played a significant role in the Australian parliamentary system, being represented in all States of the Commonwealth except , at this stage, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Over the years the relationship between parliament and the Executive has been assisted, parliament has been aided in meeting its responsibility to exercise its review powers over appropriations and a comprehensive system of reporting to the taxpayer has effectively been established by the Auditor-General reporting to the Parliament and by the work undertaken by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts both in its own right and in meeting its statutory responsibility of reporting to the Parliament on the Auditor-General's activities. Like the position of Auditor-General, as I said, the Public Accounts Committee was established by a statute of the Parliament. In a sense that makes it somewhat unique in Australia and in Commonwealth experience, as most public accounts committees tend to be committees established by each parliament on a sessional basis. The important thing about having a statutory base is that no government of the day has the power, except of course by taking the matter to the Parliament, to do away with the Committee. I think this has, in a sense, assisted the Committee's moral powers of persuasion, if nothing else, and has also given it the capacity to report to the Parliament without fear and favour. Since 1951 the Committee has definitely pursued a vigorous program of inquiry into the financial operations of Commonwealth departments and authorities. It has searched to establish whether value has been obtained for the money spent on various programs and whether departments or authorities under examination are effectively organised to implement the policies of government which fall within those areas of responsibility. In recent years greater emphasis has been put on the question of efficiency and effectiveness as well as accountability in the traditional accounting manner. Since the Committee's re-establishment, therefore, its work has fallen into a number of very clear areas. For example, in terms of financial reporting to parliament by Commonwealth departments and authorities, it has tabled a significant number of major reports over the years, especially those on the Budget Speech, the estimates of receipts and expenditure and the Appropriation Bills, which were reported on in 1954. In more recent times it has entered into the field of automatic data processing in the public sector. A number of significant reports in that area have been tabled which, in turn, have resulted in major changes taking place within the Public Service as a whole. It is worth noting that one of the reasons the size of the Committee has been increased is that the government of the day has decided to refer to the Public Accounts Committee all purchases of main frame computers and, therefore, to bring the Committee into a direct relationship with both the Executive and the Public Service in the context of the purchase and, presumably, ultimately, the use of computers on a long term basis. I think it is fair to say that the expertise the Committee has built up in this area is second to none. But I should emphasise for the benefit of the Clerk of this House, who is ultimately responsible for staffing the Committee, that significant thought will have to be given to ensuring that the Committee has available to it not only sufficient Public Service staff of very high calibre but also, equally importantly, access to personnel in the private sector who in fields such as computers tend to be more up to date than has been my experience with members of the Public Service. Another important field which the Committee pioneered was that of internal audit. It was our experience over many years that the standard of internal audit in the Public Service was absolutely unsatisfactory. As a result of our inquiries into this area there was a major shake-up in the Public Service Board in particular. There is now in place a series of significant reforms which have a direct genesis to the work undertaken by the Committee. The area of departmental and program administration again is of greater interest in the present context. We looked, for example, at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in 1977, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in 1980 and the Government Aircraft Factories in 1982. In the same year we tabled the first report on the medifraud inquiry, a matter which has been of considerable public as well as political interest in recent years. The field of public administration, however, is endless. An enormous amount of work has yet to be done. The interest of the Committee in this area was demonstrated by the report we made last year, which was tabled this year, into the selection and training of senior management in the public sector. It is worth noting in that context that the Government's White Paper, which I understand will be produced in the very near future, draws on that report to a very significant degree in its proposals for reform of the public sector. For those who over the years have tended to berate parliamentary committees and to suggest that they do not have an effective role in the administration of government, I think it is only fair to say that the role of the Public Accounts Committee, while unique, as the honourable member for Mitchell has pointed out, at the same time is extremely efficient. The Committee has performed in this parliamentary context a role which is of great importance indeed. In fact, I think I should also emphasise that it is really the only area in which members of the back bench are given the opportunity to understand the complexities of public administration. I hope that the fairly significant number of Ministers who have come from the ranks of the Committee over the years have demonstrated by the manner in which they have handled their portfolios, that they have learnt much by the experience. Much could be said about the Committee over recent years and in particular in terms of the expansion of our interest with the co-ordination of activities, particularly with regard to the public accounts committees in the States. In 1977 the Committee hosted the first conference of Commonwealth and State public accounts committees in Sydney. The second conference was held in Melbourne in 1981 and the third in Perth this year. The purpose of those conferences was to allow members of the public accounts committees throughout Australia to discuss matters of mutual concern and to encourage Federal and State co-operation on significant public sector accountability issues. It has long been our view that through section 96 grants in particular there has been a flow of funds from the Commonwealth to the States without putting in place an adequate system of accountability, one to the other. This is particularly so in the case of educational funding towards universities. In addition, we have established the biennial parliamentary seminars. These created significant opportunities for the Public Service, the private sector and members of the parliaments, both Federal and State, to discuss issues of major importance to society. The Committee hosted seminars on financial administration and parliamentary scrutiny in 1979, information technology in 1980 government expenditure and accountability in the same year and senior management in the public sector in 1982. It is my understanding that the Committee will continue to carry out this most important service both to the Parliament and to those sections of the community which are interested in various aspects of public administration and its ultimate improvement. The Committee also commenced in 1981 the publication of discussion papers which were designed to increase interest in and debate on significant issues. In that context perhaps the most significant were our papers on internal audit, the collection and dissemination of statistics and the form and standard of financial statements of Commonwealth undertakings. The last one in particular has resulted, like most of our other reports, in significant administrative reforms being undertaken by government. It is quite clear that with the growing complexities of government and the intractable problems facing all parliaments in the management of the nation's affairs, it is now becoming a matter of vital concern that parliaments should be given the opportunity to keep informed of the mechanisms by which the efficiency, effectiveness, development and conduct of government progress can be best assured. I have no doubt that the watchdog role performed by the Public Accounts Committee, as well as its more recent role of getting the Parliament back into the mainstream of public administration, are of great importance to all Australians, and especially have relevance for this Parliament. Future generations of members who will serve here I hope will be able to build on the foundations we have laid in recent years to demonstrate that democracy is not just a word bandied about in this House but does, in every sense of the term, represent the capacity of this Parliament to run the affairs of state to the benefit of all Australians. However, I join with my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell in emphasising that the changes in the administration of the Committee which have taken place in the last 12 months or so cause me, as the past Chairman, some concern. I am well aware of the difficulties the House of Representatives has in conducting a wide range of committees. I am also well aware that in doing this it is expected that all committees will fit into a prearranged set of traditional roles as dictated by time and administrative convenience. I should also point out, however, that when dealing with a committee which has been in operation now for over 31 years, which has tabled in this House 222 reports, which has a larger number of members than any other parliamentary committee has ever had, and which has a record that I think it is fair to say is second to none, it is not necessarily possible always to expect either its administrative staff or its members simply to say: 'We are going to pander to mediocrity; we expect you to reduce your capability to fit in with the standards of others'. One thing the PAC has demonstrated over the years is a very high standard of excellence. It expects nothing less of its members. It expects nothing less in the quality of its reports. It is in the interests of the Parliament as a whole, certainly of the House of Representatives, whatever action be taken with regard to supplying personnel for the Committee, that excellence be the objective of all reporting, not just by the Public Accounts Committee but by all the other committees of this House. Therefore, I seriously suggest that action be initiated to ensure not only that there is a continuity of staff of the highest calibre but also, in relation to the difficulties we have had in recent years over the Canberra Commercial Development Authority inquiry, that the parliamentary staff advise Mr Speaker on the question of appointing a legal adviser to all committees of the Parliament. I emphasise that the PAC in recent years has had the support and assistance of Mr Justice Paul Toose, CBE, a retired New South Wales Supreme Court judge. I brought him on to the staff of the Committee as a result of the difficulties we experienced with the CCDA inquiry. I did not wish to see a repetition of that situation. It emphasises that we can no longer rely on the support of the Crown Solicitor and the Attorney-General's Department to give to committees of the Parliament expeditiously the type of quality legal advice they must have. As I said in my address to this House last night, we are responsible for the natural rights of all Australian citizens, and it is not good enough that parliamentary committees and their reporting mechanisms should in any sense be brought into question on that subject. For that reason, I earnestly ask the House to give further thought to appointing a formal legal adviser to the Parliament. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(4.05) —I want to say a few words as the longest Government member on the Public Accounts Committee. This reform is very much overdue. The work load of the Public Accounts Committee has been increasing to such a degree that the Committee is now running very much behind in its program. It is most important that the Public Accounts Committee be able to deal with the Auditor-General's reports as quickly as possible. Because of the huge backlog, we have not even begun to face up to the questions posed in the Auditor-General' s 1983 report. Some of the issues raised in that report are of tremendous consequence. Some of the problems the Auditor-General has identified, especially in the Department of Defence, obviously need to be dealt with as quickly as possible. For this reason, and for another reason which I shall mention in a moment, we must pass this legislation to expand the role of the Committee. I am sure that we will do so and that it will benefit not only the Committee but also the Parliament and the Australian people. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) mentioned some of the very positive aspects of the Public Accounts Committee. I need not refer to all of them here. Let me mention another factor which has been of great importance in the Committee making this determination. I was the one who moved the motion that the Committee be expanded . I refer to the situation of the sub-committees. We have had to work at sub- committee level because of the large number of inquiries. Because of that, there are four or five members on a sub-committee. Given all the other duties of members of parliament, quite often a sub-committee meeting may end up with only two or three members present, which is not really satisfactory in dealing with some of the complex issues with which the Public Accounts Committee has to deal. So the expanded committee will be important in allowing the sub-committee structure to go forth. We will be able to have more sub-committees and bigger sub-committees. Of course, commensurate with such an expansion there must also be an expansion of the staffing of the Public Accounts Committee. I urge the Government and the Clerk of the House to assist the Public Accounts Committee and to consider its special needs. As is clear from the evidence, the Public Accounts Committee deals with a very much greater number of inquiries than does any other committee of the Parliament. It must have staff commensurate with the work it is required to do, both in quality and in quantity. In the last year we have had problems with staff turnover. The staff have been transferred from the Joint House Department to the House of Representatives. We are not objecting to that situation but we are saying that the special needs of the Public Accounts Committee must be taken into account. Under those circumstances we will have to have more staff, especially with an expanded committee, if we are to be able to deal with the matters coming before us. The Auditor-General's reports of this year in particular have to be dealt with as soon as possible. It will be into 1984 now before we can deal with these matters. Some of them are of crucial importance because they highlight what prima facie are difficult problems of public administration that ought to be looked at quickly. The general role of the Public Accounts Committee in the last three years clearly warrants the status which the Committee has and warrants this expansion. The Public Accounts Committee plays a unique role in examining the details of public administration. In the period I have been on the Committee I have learnt more about the way in which departments operate than I imagine one could learn in many years if one was not on the Committee. That is because of the many hearings the Committee holds with public servants whereby members are able to understand their mentalities, the difficulties they have and the problems they encounter, as well as perhaps trying to change some of their attitudes. I think the Public Accounts Committee has achieved both of those tasks. It has understood public servants and their problems. At the same time it has insisted on standards being enforced. Those standards on which it has insisted have increasingly been taken up and enforced as a result of the reports which the Committee has brought down. In fact there are two types of reports. There are reports which relate specifically to government departments and reports which in a sense deal with the whole of the Public Service. Both those types of reports have been invaluable in my view in that they have had an impact on the Public Service especially in the area of audits and financial accounting and across the board in terms of administration. There have also been specialist reports that relate to a specific department or departments. Those specialist reports have had tremendous impact, generally speaking. Often we have found a situation where, even before the report of the Committee comes down, substantial measures have been taken by the Government, whichever government is in power, to redress the situation once it is known that the Public Accounts Committee has an inquiry going and once the direction of that inquiry is known. The medifraud inquiry was a good example of that. The Department of Health and other departments began the process of making changes to their procedures so as to deal more seriously with the problem of medical fraud and overservicing than they did prior to the time before the report came down. This is the case with several of the other reports of the Committee. I believe that the attitude of the public servants who come before the Committee, generally speaking, is of the highest order. There have been some lapses where we have had some public servants answer questions in ways which have not been as adequate as they might have been. But, generally speaking, the reputation of the Committee is such that the heads of departments have instructed their staff to make full and adequate disclosures before the Committee and, in so doing, to allow a situation where information is made available to the public about the operations of departments and the saving of funds. One of the recent developments that is important is the current inquiry into the collection of excise duties. That inquiry is significant because it is one of the first inquiries that the Public Accounts Committee has taken on which deals with the collection of moneys rather than the disbursement of moneys. Our general inquiries have tended to be in the area of the disbursements of moneys. But this inquiry is significant because it looks at the taxation area. I am hopeful that the Public Accounts Committee, with its expanded role, will now be able to look more closely at this area of revenue collections into which, in my view, it has not looked sufficiently in the past. It has also been mentioned that the Public Accounts Committee has looked at the whole computer area. Its role in this area would be dramatically increased now that the Government has decided that all major purchases of computer equipment are to be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. I believe that is a very significant development which indicates the respect for the Committee and the expertise which is available to the Committee. I believe there is one other matter in which the Committee's function could be improved. Too many meetings of the Committee are in private session. I think we ought to look at holding more of the meetings of the Committee in public. I urge the media to take a greater interest in the role and activities of the Committee . I believe that the ongoing inquiries, especially through the public hearings of the Committee, have a very important function in exposing inefficiencies and problems within the administration of government. I urge the media to take a greater interest in the ongoing inquiries of the Public Accounts Committee expecially with regard to its expanded role. I heartily support this legislation and I look forward to joining the new members of the Committee in having a very good year in 1984. 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. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 1983 which I propose to introduce in a few moments form a package of legislative changes arising from a review of Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing legislation. The Government's election platform included a commitment to strengthen anti-dumping procedures to ensure that goods are not landed in Australia at unrealistically low prices. A wide ranging review of the legislation was announced on 10 April 1983. A Green Paper was subsequently published and an opportunity was afforded State governments, industry and commerce organisations, trade unions and all other interested parties to submit their views on ways in which the anti-dumping and countervailing legislation and procedures might be improved. Some 150 submissions were received, canvassing a very wide range of views and various proposals for change. Dumping occurs when the products of one contry are exported to another country at less than their normal value. Normal value is defined as the price of like goods sold in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the country of export. Dumping is condemned internationally as unfair trading if it causes, or threatens, material injury to the industry producing like goods in the importing country and a dumping duty, equal to the difference between the export price and the normal value, may be levied on dumped imports. Where any subsidy, bounty, reduction or remission of freight or other financial assistance applies to the production, export or carriage of goods exported to Australia and those goods cause or threaten material injury to an Australian industry, countervailing duties, equal to the amount of subsidy or other assistance received, may be levied. Australia's international rights and obligations in respect of anti-dumping and countervailing action are governed by its membership of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the relevant GATT agreements negotiated in 1979 during the Tokyo round of multilateral trade negotiations. These agreements are known as the GATT Anti-Dumping Code and the GATT Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties. The provisions of the GATT and the codes are designed to ensure a balance of rights and obligations between exporting and importing interests by attempting to ensure that the use of dumping and subsidy practices do not adversely affect or prejudice the interests of any signatory and that offsetting measures, whilst providing relief to local industry suffering injury, do not unjustifiably impede international trade. The Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 was enacted in that year to give effect to Australia's decision to become a signatory to the GATT Anti-Dumping Code. The Act was revised in 1981 to enable Australia to become a signatory to the revised GATT Anti-Dumping Code and the GATT Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties arising from the Tokyo round of multilateral trade negotiations. Before I explain the specific changes in this Bill I will take a few minutes to outline some changes to administrative procedures for processing dumping or subsidisation complaints which emanate from the review. The Government considers it is fundamental to effective anti-dumping and countervailing action to ensure that complaints are dealt with expeditiously and that all parties to a complaint have an opportunity to provide information relevant to the issues in the complaint within a reasonable time frame. It is proposed, therefore, to require the Department of Industry and Commerce, in other than exceptional cases, to arrive at a preliminary finding on whether there is a case of injurious dumping or subsidisation within 45 days of accepting a complaint. The suppliers of the imported goods and the importers as well as the complainants will be given an opportunity to provide information relevant to the complaint within a specified period, usually 30 days, during this initial examination. Questionnaires will be provided to all interested parties to simplify the process. If a preliminary case of injurious dumping or subsidisation is determined, the Department will also be required, in other than exceptional circumstances, to complete its investigation of the complaint within a further 120 days. This is the normal period of validity of provisional security action. Consultations required under the GATT code on subsidies and countervailing duties and Australia's bilateral trade agreements would occur during these periods. The time limits I have just mentioned apply to normal complaints but must remain flexible to deal with cases which require a speedier preliminary finding or where the complaint is of a particularly complicated nature and where, as a consequence, the timetable just cannot be met. If information requested from interested parties to a complaint is not forthcoming within the requested time frame decisions will be made on the evidence available to the Department at the time. To counter import source switching to countries not named in the original complaints, it may be necessary to take preliminary action on the basis of tentative normal values established as a result of previous investigations or other information available to the Department. This will be done if it is necessary to extend a complaint where significant quantities of goods are imported from countries not named in the existing dumping notices and where there is reasonable cause to believe such shipments are at dumped prices. To ensure that the effects of provisional security action are not eroded, securities will not be returned automatically to importers when dumping or subsidisation complaints are suspended on the basis of acceptance of voluntary undertakings by exporters in respect of future exports. The Government believes that these administrative initiatives will significantly strengthen the procedures for dealing with complaints of dumping or subsidisation, while ensuring that overseas suppliers and importers are given ample opportunity to supply information and submit rebuttal arguments against any allegations of unfair trading practices. I now turn to the major changes proposed by this Bill. By clause 3 the existing definition of business associates in section 4 of the Act is being aligned with the similar definition of 'related persons' in the valuation provisions of the Customs Act. Currently, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act includes provisions which enable the Minister to disregard the invoiced export price for certain import transactions between business associates and to determine the export price for those transactions on the basis of the price for the first arms length sale of the goods in Australia by the importer, less prescribed deductions covering all costs normally incurred beyond free-on-board level. This enables action to be taken to counter sales dumping, or so-called hidden dumping . Hidden dumping occurs when the parties to the transaction arrange to set the export price shown on the invoice at or above the normal value but also arrange to subsequently share the profit on the export sale. An importer can then sell the goods at a loss to gain market share. The provisions of clause 4 will permit the Minister to determine the export price in such transactions, which involve parties who are not business associates. The provisions of clause 4 will also enable the Minister to accept the invoiced export price for transactions between associates once it has been determined that the relevant parties trade at arms length, notwithstanding their association. Under the existing provisions of the Act, where the exporter does not sell like goods to those exported in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption in the country of export in sales that are arms length transactions it is necessary for the Minister to initially seek to obtain pricing information from other sellers of like goods in that market before applying any other criteria for establishing a normal value. For example, this may be a constructed price based on the exporter's costs of production, selling and administration expenses and a reasonable profit. The amendments proposed by clause 5 will mean that, in future, where the Minister is satisfied that it is not practicable to obtain within a reasonable period pricing information in relation to sales by sellers other than the exporter, the normal value may be assessed using other provisions of section 5. Where the Minister so directs, the Customs Tariff (Anti -Dumping) Act currently provides for normal values to be determined on the basis of the highest price paid for like goods sold in the ordinary course of trade in the country of export for export to a third country. In confirmity with the GATT anti-dumping code, clause 5 of the Bill will allow the highest export price to a third country selected for normal value purposes to be a representative price. Another very important provision relates to the Minister's powers to determine the normal value of goods in circumstances where prices for like goods to those exported are sold for consumption in the country of export and have been, for an extended period, sold at a price level which would not permit recovery of all costs incurred in the production and sale of the goods. In other words, domestic sales in the exporting country are being consistently made at a loss. The provisions of clause 5 provide that such sales will not be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade if they have been made over an extended period and in substantial quantities and are not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period. The normal value may then be established having regard to any remaining sales of like goods that are not at a loss made in the domestic market of the exporting country during the period subject to investigation, if they are made in sufficient quantities to be representative. In the absence of such sales a normal value will normally be constructed on the basis of the cost of production of the goods, selling and administration expenses plus a reasonable profit margin. The European Economic Community and the United States have legislated to give effect to these concepts . Where sales are not made in the domestic market of the exporting country, normal values may, at times, be assessed on the basis of prices for export sales to third countries. The amendments proposed by clause 5 will enable such sales, when made at a loss, to be disregarded for normal value purposes. Clause 6 of the Bill proposes the inclusion of an indicative but not exhaustive listing of those factors to which the Minister may have regard when determining, for the purposes of the Act, whether material injury has been caused, or threatened, to an Australian industry. This provision is designed to give effect to the requirements of Article 3 of the GATT anti-dumping code and Article 6 of the GATT code on subsidies and countervailing duties. The Customs Tariff (Anti- Dumping) Act currently provides that the dumping duty is a sum equal to the amount by which the amount of the export price of goods is less than the amount of the normal value of the goods. The Minister may however, by notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, direct that the dumping duty in respect of goods is to be an amount ascertained by reference to the value, or to the weight or other measure of quantity of the goods, provided that that amount does not exceed the difference between the export price and the normal value. The provisions of clause 7 will make it clear that under the latter provision the Minister may determine the amount of dumping duty on goods to be a sum sufficient to prevent injury to industry. Clause 10 proposes a complementary change to the provision in relation to the determination of countervailing duties. Other necessary machinery amendments of a technical nature, which are included in the Bill, are set out in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. I said earlier that it is this Government's firm policy to deal quickly and effectively with unfair trading practices by exporters to this country which cause or threaten injury to Australian industries. The Government believes that the measures in this legislative package when combined with the improved administrative procedures will ensure that the Government's policy in this matter is fully met. At the same time it is considered that the changes will ensure that the necessary investigations of complaints are conducted in accordance with Australia's international rights and obligations and in a manner preserving the rights and interests of all interested parties to those complaints. During the review a wide range of proposed modifications to the legislation were submitted by various interested parties. I commend all parties contributing to the review for their extremely detailed and constructive submissions. For the information of honourable members I will comment on some issues upon which proposals for change were submitted but where, after careful consideration, the Government has decided not to adopt the proposals. One such issue is secondary dumping-the inclusion of dumped components or raw materials into a manufacturer product which is subsequently exported. Complex problems of definition and interpretation of inputs to the manufacturing process in other countries would be involved in any anti-dumping action. For this reason an investigation of secondary dumping in other countries would be complex and protracted and it would be extremely difficult in terms of access to evidence to prove any allegations. It is also unlikely that the countries supplying dumped components or raw materials would agree to Customs officers conducting the necessary investigations in their countries. The Government will, however, continue to pursue the matter in the GATT with a view to having a satisfactory formula developed internationally on this issue within the GATT anti-dumping code. On the question of goods purchased by tender, Commonwealth purchasing procedures are being examined to determine whether, at the time of evaluation, tender documents should require all relevant information to be supplied by the tenderer to enable normal values to be assessed for any imported goods to be supplied under the contract. The last issue on which I will comment is freight dumping, involving the remission or reduction of overseas freight. In this regard countervailing duties may be imposed where freights are less than normal freight as defined in the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act, and injury is thereby caused or threatened to an Australian industry. The Government believes the existing provisions to be sufficient and has decided to make no alterations. The amendments proposed by this Bill are expected to have little effect on revenue collections for 1983-84. When dumping or countervailing duties are imposed, overseas exporters normally increase their export prices to levels which avoid any additional impost on goods at the time of importation. The measures are designed to ensure that Australian industries continue to be protected from unfair trading practices relating to imported goods. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill ( No. 2) 1983. It proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 to introduce new provisions resulting from the review of Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing legislation. To complement the powers provided to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act to combat sales dumping, or so-called hidden dumping, Part II of the Bill adds a provision into the Customs Act empowering a Collector of Customs or an officer appointed by him to enter certain premises on a warrant and also to request persons, by written notice, to furnish documents and information and to attend and give evidence in respect of goods subject to anti-dumping action. These additional powers are necessary to enable effective investigation of practices such as secret rebates and package deals, which are part of hidden dumping schemes between parties to import transactions. Clause 7 in this Part of the Bill introduces new provisions into the Customs Act to enable the Minister, or his delegate, to authorise the convening of meetings of the Australian industry which is party to a complaint of dumping or subsidisation for the sole purpose of providing advice as to non-injurious prices or quantities which might be incorporated in any voluntary undertakings by exporters or by governments. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade anti- dumping code, the GATT code on subsidies and countervailing duties and the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement encourage the resolution of complaints through consultation and the acceptance of undertakings . The Customs Act will also be amended by clause 7 to provide that the Trade Practices Act specifically applies to meetings convened under the new provision and that all parties to such meetings must comply fully with that Act. The provisions of proposed section 269V will require interested parties to a dumping or subsidisation complaint to submit written information that they may wish to provide relative to the complaint verified by statutory declaration or witnessed by a notary public. This will require persons supplying written information they wish to be taken into consideration to be satisfied as to the accuracy of that information. The Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act provides an opportunity for the Industries Assistance Commission to review dumping and countervailing decisions. The Government takes the view that such reviews should be confined to the facts of the particular case, that as the question at issue is one relating to unfair trading practices and is not an industry assistance matter, then the policy guidelines in the Industries Assistance Commission Act on industry assistance issues are not relevant. The measures in Part III of this Bill propose to amend the Industries Assistance Commission Act to provide that the reviews by the Commission are conducted as reviews of the facts relating to dumping or countervailing issues. The measures contained in this Bill will have no direct financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(4.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives effect to the Government's proposal, announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the Budget Speech, to reintroduce a test that will take account of both income and assets for the purposes of assessing entitlement to pension. The test will replace the current test which takes into account only income, including income from assets. It will apply to social security pensions including age, invalid, wives', widows' and spouse carers' pensions, sheltered employment and rehabilitation allowances and supporting parent benefits, as well as to repatriation service pensions. One of the Government's major commitments in the welfare field is to increase the single pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Because the introduction of the income and assets test will direct welfare spending to the more needy, the prospects for the Government to honour this commitment will be significantly improved. The decision in 1976 to introduce a test based only on income was short-sighted . The income test has substantially failed to concentrate assistance on those most in need. Some people have entered into arrangements designed to exploit the income test. Others have deposited large sums in non-interest bearing accounts, often disadvantaging themselves overall, in order to maximise their pension entitlement. No responsible Government can stand by while these sorts of practices persist, since they divert limited welfare funds from the most needy. The Government believes that the only way to redress this situation is to reintroduce a test which looks not only at the income of pensioners, but also their assets. In this way, we will not be paying people who have adequate private funds and who do not need income support. I would like to make three basic points concerning the design of the new test. First, the test will maintain the position of the great majority of pensioners with only modest levels of income and assets. It is estimated that three- quarters of all pensioners will be unaffected and, of the remainder, about one- third are expected to gain. Most pensioners therefore have nothing to fear from the introduction of the test. Some pensioners will benefit from the new test because only 10 per cent of the value of a pensioner's property will be treated as income and the actual income from that property will be disregarded. For example, a pensioner who currently derives income from Aussie Bonds at a rate of 11.75 per cent per annum will be better off under the income and assets test. Second, the new test will catch those people with sizable amounts of assets who are circumventing existing rules. On the grounds of equity, such people have no right to scarce welfare funds. Third, the test is intended not to intrude upon pensioners or to require valuers to visit a pensioner's home. For this reason, the pensioner's home, car and personal effects will generally be disregarded in applying the new test. The new test will, in general, follow the means test which applied prior to November 1976. However, it will in some respects be substantially more generous. Under the new lifestyle package, the first $30,000 of a pensioner's recreational assets, such as a holiday home or a bush block on which the pensioner is living, will be disregarded. No such exemption was available under the previous means test. Farmers will also be treated more generously. Under the old means test, they were hit hard because both their assets and income were taken into account. The new test will have regard only to either 10 per cent of the value of the farm's assets, or the actual net income from the farm if that is greater. In addition, many farmers will benefit from the lifestyle package. Additionally, the Government will substantially ease the rules which will apply to the payment of supplementary assistance by abolishing the special, stringent, means test that currently applies. This will materially redress the disadvantage experienced by private renters in comparison with home owners. How the Test Will Work Most pensioners own some property and also receive or derive some income. Under current arrangements, any income of the pensioner is taken into account. This may include income from the pensioner's assets, such as rent from a house, dividends from shares or interest from a bank account. The new test will basically operate in three steps. First, a value will be placed on the relevant assets of a pensioner. These assets will not, of course, include items of exempt property such as the pensioner's home, car and personal effects, and the first $ 30,000 of assets included in the lifestyle package. A uniform 10 per cent of the value of the relevant assets, excluding the general asset exemption of $2,500 combined for a married couple and $1,500 for a single pensioner, will be taken into account regardless of the level of income that they may actually produce. The amount is referred to in the Bill as the property component. Second, the income of the pensioner will be determined. This will include income such as personal earnings or wages but not income from assets already counted in the property component. Any income from exempt assets will also be included, subject to a maximum amount of 10 per cent of the value of the exempt property. For example, if a pensioner rents out his or her house while on a six months' overseas holiday, the house will be treated as an exempt asset but net rental from the house, up to 10 per cent of the value of the house, will be included as income of the person. Third, the income of the pensioner will be added to the property component and the total so calculated, after allowing for the free area of $1,560 per annum for a single person or $2,600 per annum combined for a married couple, will affect the pension in the same way as income does under the current income test, that is, each $1 in excess of these limits will reduce the pension by 50c. I will now outline in some detail the treatment of assets and income. Assets As I have mentioned, certain assets will be disregarded in calculating the property component of a person, regardless of their actual value. The most important exemptions are as follows: The principal home of the pensioner; a car for the private and domestic use of each pensioner; furniture and other household effects; clothing; tools, jewellery and hobby collections, provided they are for the private and domestic use of the pensioner; and other assets to the value of $1,500 for a single person or $2,500 for a married couple. The Government has also devised a lifestyle package which will exempt the first $30, 000 of the combined value of the following assets, provided they are maintained primarily for the recreational use of the person: A holiday home, being a permanent structure that is able to be used as a permanent residence and is actually used by the pensioner for at least two weeks of every year; a time sharing interest in a permanent structure that is used by the pensioner for at least two weeks of every year; a caravan; a motor vehicle with sleeping facilities; and a boat, and any accessories to that boat. The lifestyle exemption will also apply to a farm property, bush block or hobby farm on which a pensioner lives. This is in addition to the pensioner's principal residence and a small area of associated land which would be fully exempt anyway. If any asset included in the lifestyle package produces income or is used by the person to produce income, the $30,000 exemption will be reduced by $10 for each $1 of that income. This ensures that the full exemption applies only where the asset is solely for the pensioner's private use. Where income from such assets exceeds $3,000 a year or 10 per cent of the value of the exemption, whichever is the lesser, the concession will not apply and the net value of the assets will be taken into account. Other exemptions will also be available in situations where it would be unfair or unreasonable to take into account the value of certain assets. Where a pensioner sells his or her principal home and intends to use the proceeds to buy a new one, those proceeds will be disregarded for a period of 12 months provided the proceeds are not attracting income. This is to ensure that pensioners undertaking normal transactions are not unreasonably penalised where, for example, the settlement of a house purchase is a few weeks after the settlement of a home sale. Another important exemption will apply to pensioners who loan or pay money to acquire permanent accommodation at an aged persons home or a retirement village. Such a payment will not affect pension entitlement unless the pensioner pays or donates more that is required, in which case the excess amount would generally be treated as an asset. If the pensioner retained his or her former residence, it would no longer be disregarded as the principal home, however. If a pensioner enters a nursing home the pensioner's former home will continue to be disregarded for 12 months to allow the pensioner time to rearrange his or her affairs. However, if the home is rented out during this period, the net income will be taken into account. As I have already mentioned, the lifestyle package may apply to farmers who live on their farms. Even where the package is not applicable, the treatment of farmers will be far more equitable than under the stringent conditions of the 1976 means test, where both 10 per cent of the value of farm assets and the net income from the farm were included in the pension assessment. Under the new test , where the annual rate of income from the farm is less than 10 per cent of the value of the farm assets, only the value of those assets will be taken into account. For example, if a farm valued at $100,000 produces income of $9,000 a year, only 10 per cent of the value of the farm assets will be taken into account but not the income. On the other hand, if the annual rate of income is more than 10 per cent of the value of the farm assets, only the income from the farm will be considered. Accordingly, if the farm valued at $100,000 produced income of $13,000, only the income would be taken into account but not the value of the farm. Similarly, in the case of a pensioner running a business, 10 per cent of the value of the business assets will be taken into account or, if the annual rate of income is greater than 10 per cent of that value, the actual income will be included, but not both. Income I will now outline the treatment of income under the new test. In general terms , the definition of income will include all income other than income which is derived from the pensioner's property. Current exemptions from the definition of income will, of course, be retained. Income will include any payment of a superannuation pension or an annuity, other than a purchased annuity, which are made to a pensioner. In the case of a purchased annuity, 10 per cent of the capitalised value of the annuity will be taken into account in lieu of actual payments. However, where it is to the advantage of the pensioner, the payments will be taken into account as income. Supplementary Assistance I now turn to the relaxation of the rules relating to the payment of supplementary assistance for private renters. Currently, supplementary assistance is income tested separately from the pension. A stringent test currently applies to such assistance, reducing it by 50c for each $1 of private income. The maximum assistance of $10 a week is therefore entirely lost when a pensioner's income reaches $20 a week. This test considerably disadvantages private renters by comparison with home owners, and the Government has decided to abolish the separate test for supplementary rental assistance. Under the income and assets test, supplementary assistance will be added to the pension and the general income and assets test applied to the total amount. At present, the pensioner must be paying rent of over $10 a week to qualify for any rental supplement and be paying rent of $30 a week or more to receive the maximum amount of $10 a week. Deprivation The new test will include provisions which will ensure the test is not circumvented by pensioners depriving themselves of income or assets. Similar provisions apply in the current income test, but they have failed to operate effectively. Under the new test, if a person disposes of income or assets without receiving adequate consideration, the deprivation provision will apply. However, to allow for modest gifts, such as to relatives or charities, pensioners will be permitted to dispose of assets to the value of $1,500 if single or $2,500 combined for a married couple in each year without affecting pension entitlement. Where a pensioner disposes of assets over these limits without adequate return, the difference between the actual return received and the current market value at the time of disposition will be treated as an asset. This amount will be reduced by 10 per cent on each anniversary of the deprivation. Where a pensioner forgoes or surrenders income without adequate return, the pensioner will be regarded as still receiving the income. For example, a person who forgoes an increase in superannuation will be regarded as receiving that income. Of course, the new deprivation provisions are not directed at pensioners who incur normal expenditure, such as spending money on home improvements or holidays. As announced by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in his ministerial statement released on Budget night, any deprivations which occurred on or after 24 August 1983 will be affected by the new test. Regard will be had to any disposal of income or assets for up to five years before a person becomes eligible for a pension, but not before 24 August 1983. Where a person could not have foreseen that he or she would be claiming a pension, for example where a woman's husband dies suddenly and she becomes eligible for widow's pension, no regard would be had to income or assets disposed of prior to qualification for pension. Appeal Rights The comprehensive and well-established appeals system for social security pensioners will apply to the new test. Social security pensioners have the right to decisions which affect them reconsidered by a Department of Social Security review officer. If such a review is unsuccessful, a pensioner can seek further internal review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. An additional right of appeal exists to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The repatriation legislation does not provide for rights of appeal on service pension matters apart from the right of review by the Repatriation Review Tribunal on the question of permanent unemployability. This Bill does not contain any provisions which would extend the appeal rights or rights of review, although it is obvious that there are areas where such rights need to be available. The Administrative Review Council has been examining the question of the review of pension decisions under repatriation legislation and recently submitted a report to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), which was tabled on 17 November 1983. The Government is considering the report and will determine what appeal rights or rights of review are to be made available. These will be available before the legislation for the income and assets test comes into operation. Implementation It is expected that the new arrangements will take up to 12 months from now to implement. The new test will, of course, have major administrative ramifications for both the Departments of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, including: The collection of data on the asset holdings of some 2.4 million current pensioners; the development of new systems, clerical procedures, and computer programs; the recruitment and training of staff; the location of suitable accommodation and facilities; and the dissemination of information about the test. Administrative costs associated with the implementation of the income and assets test have been revised in the light of more detailed examination of staffing requirements and the timing of preparatory work necessary to achieve implementation by the target date. Implementation costs to November 1984 are now estimated to be of the order of $ 80m. Of this, some $48m is expected to fall in 1983-84. These costs include not only those of the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs but also those of other departments such as the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Housing and Construction, which will incur quite substantial expenditures in connection with the provision and fit-out of accommodation. Additional costs for administration of the test once implementation is completed are estimated to be of the order of $15m per annum. Impact on Pension Outlays It is difficult to estimate the overall effect of the new test on outlays owing to the lack of data on pensioners' asset holdings. Using as a basis the impact of the change to the income test in November 1976, it is estimated that social security outlays could be reduced by $200m in a full year. The equivalent figure in respect of service pensions has been estimated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs at up to $110m. These estimates need to be treated with caution because of several factors, the impact of which cannot be readily assessed. On the one hand, the new test incorporates several exemptions not in the previous means test and there is now a different relationship between prevailing interest rates and the assets test conversion factor of 10 per cent. Both these influences would tend to reduce savings. On the other hand, savings will be higher to the extent that the introduction of the present income test increased circumvention of the financial criteria of pension eligibility. No estimate can be made of the possible higher savings resulting from this factor. In addition, of course, the size and distribution of pensioners' asset holdings are likely to have changed since November 1976. The argument for an income and assets test is not about whether we should have a means test at all. Governments of all persuasions have accepted this principle . It is about which type of means test is most effective and most equitable. The Government considers that the proposed income and assets test will be far superior to the current income test in both respects and will therefore allow a considerable redirection of scarce welfare funding to the more needy in our community. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill to amend the income tax law covers a range of subjects. Amongst other things it will, so far as income tax is concerned, complete the implementation of unfinished proposals of the former Government which this Government decided to adopt. The measures being finalised include the denial of relevant income tax deductions in respect of property that is the subject of certain leveraged leasing and similar arrangements, and the extension of special income tax concessions to Australian trading ships. In the same category is the removal, in respect of short term life insurance policies, of the advantage in the present law under which bonuses and other amounts are received by policyholders free of income tax. The already announced measures covering payments made within four years of taking out such policies will apply in respect of life insurance policies secured between the date of the former Government's announcement and today. Policies taken out after today will be subject to tougher measures that I will describe later. The Bill will also give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 27 April 1983, to exempt from tax the first two weeks of social security special benefits paid on or after 17 February 1983 to victims of major disasters. Amendments foreshadowed on 14 November 1983 to counter tax avoidance practices involving employee superannuation funds are included in the Bill. Other provisions of the Bill will make certain modifications to the Australian film incentives scheme. Finally, the Bill will also provide for extension of the present exemption from interest withholding tax for interest paid on public or widely spread overseas issues or bearer debentures. I turn now to details of these various measures. Leverage Leasing and Similar Arrangements The Bill will give effect to two measures announced by the previous Government to deny tax deductions that would otherwise be allowable to an owner of property that is the subject of certain leveraged finance arrangements. Under the first measure, deductions-for example, depreciation, repairs, interest and expenses of borrowing-will not be allowable where the property has been leased to a non- resident and is used overseas and is leased to a tax exempt organisation, or is leased back to a person who was the previous owner and user. Similarly, deductions will not be allowable where the property, although not leased, is used in providing goods or services and the person having effective control of the property in providing those goods or services is a non-resident, a tax exempt organisation or the previous owner and user. However, a taxpayer whose property is being used by a lessee or end user partly in tax exempt activities and partly to produce assessable income will be entitled to obtain deductions on a basis that is consistent with the extent to which the end use of the property is for taxable purposes. That would occur, for example, if the property was the subject of a leveraged lease to a life insurance company that used it partly in connection with its tax exempt superannuation business and partly in connection with its taxable business. The particular arrangements that will attract the application of the provisions are those under which the predominant part of the purchase or construction cost of a taxpayer's property is financed by a non- recourse debt. Broadly, a non-recourse debt is one where the lender's rights against the taxpayer in the case of default in repayment are effectively limited to rights against the property, or against income generated or goods produced by the property. A debt is also regarded as being effectively non-recourse if, in the ordinary course of events, the lender would not have access to the general assets of the taxpayer in an action for recovery. To prevent a taxpayer being denied deductions in circumstances where the property has been financed under arrangements which might technically be described as non-recourse but where there is no real restriction of the lender's rights against the taxpayer, the Commissioner of Taxation will be authorised not to treat a particular debt as a non-recourse debt if the circumstances so warrant. As announced, this measure will apply to property that a taxpayer purchases under a contract entered into after 1 p.m. on 24 June 1982 or that a taxpayer commenced to construct after that time. The second of these related measures was announced first on 18 December 1981. It is designed to preserve the policy underlying the investment allowance that it should apply only to eligible plant that is used by the owner or lessee exclusively for the purpose of producing assessable income. That policy has been circumvented by arrangements under which plant legally owned by a taxable entity is used to produce goods or services for a tax-exempt organisation in circumstances where that organisation has effective control of the use of the plant. An example of the kind of arrangement that has been devised is one where an exempt organisation retains the effective use, but not the formal ownership, of plant that it would ordinarily own and use itself in providing goods or services to its customers. Such an ownership may be acquired by a partnership which appoints the tax-exempt organisation as its management agent in the provision of the goods or services per medium of the subject plant. Under the agreement between the partners and the organisation, the organisation buys all of the goods or services so provided before in turn re-selling them. The real effect, of course, is that the plant is being used by the organisation in providing goods or services to its customers in the ordinary course of business, as though it were the owner or lessee of the plant. If the exempt organisation were the legal owner or lessee, no investment allowance would be available in respect of the plant. The measures contained in the Bill will deny the investment allowance, in the circumstances I have outlined, where the plant is acquired by a taxpayer under a contract entered into after 18 December 1981 or, if constructed by the taxpayers, where construction commenced after that date. Special Concessions for Australian Trading Ships The Bill will authorise special taxation concessions for eligible Australian trading ships. The measures were first announced by the previous Government on 29 July 1982 and will give effect to recommendations in the report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping. The new rules will apply to an eligible Australian trading ship which is acquired new or constructed by a taxpayer, and is or was first commissioned on or after 29 July 1977. Broadly, a ship will be eligible for the special allowances if it is registered in Australia, is engaged exclusively in the coastal or overseas carriage of passengers or cargo, is wholly owned, used and manned by Australian residents and is used exclusively to produce income assessable in Australia. In addition, the level at which the ship is manned must not exceed the level determined for that ship by the Secretary to the Department of Transport. Eligible ships will qualify for depreciation in equal instalments over five years beginning, generally, in the year in which the eligibility criteria are satisfied. If the criteria are satisfied in a year later than the commissioning year, depreciation will be based on the depreciated value of the ship at the beginning of that later year. Ships which satisfy the eligibility criteria within 90 days of commissioning will qualify for the new rate of depreciation in the commissioning year, or the 1982-83 income year, whichever is later. In certain circumstances, depreciation at the new rate in respect of a ship commissioned after 30 June 1983 may be allowable in the year preceding the year in which the ship is commissioned. Eligible ships will also be excluded from the legislative requirement that, to qualify for investment allowance purposes, the property concerned must be used only in Australia. The exclusion will extend to eligible ships in respect of which the investment allowance has previously been denied for this reason. The investment allowance for eligible ships used outside Australia will be available in the same year of income as the new rate of depreciation commences to apply to the ship after it is commissioned. The amount of allowance will be 18 per cent of the depreciated value of the ship in that year. The revenue cost of these special concessions for eligible Australian ships is estimated to be $8m for the 1983-84 and 1984-85 income years; $25m for 1985-86 and $19m for 1986-87. Short Term Life Assurance Policies On 30 March 1983, soon after we came to office, my colleague the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) announced that the Government, during these sittings of the Parliament, would introduce legislation to give effect to the measures proposed by the former Government to remove the tax advantage available in respect of sort term life assurance policies issued after 27 August 1982. The present Bill fulfils that commitment, but the Government believes that the previously announced measures are quite inadequate to stamp out this form of tax avoidance. The weakness of those measures is that they not only failed to counter avoidance through short term life assurance policies, but also gave a degree of legitimacy to policies with at least a duration of four years and one day. Recently, advertisements have appeared exploiting this very aspect of the announced measures and claiming that tax freedom is assured provided a policy is allowed to run for more than four years. This Government is not in the business of facilitating tax avoidance. From and including tomorrow policies of life assurance will, with specified exceptions, need to be held for at least a period of 10 years before bonuses and similar proceeds received under those policies will be completely free of income tax. This Bill will make subject to tax bonuses on life assurance policies and other amounts in the nature of bonuses that are received within four years of commencement of a policy taken out after 27 August 1982 and before tomorrow. In these cases the amount received in the first two years of a policy will be fully assessable while amounts received in the third and fourth year after commencement will be taxable as to two-thirds and one-third respectfully. For policies taken out after today, bonuses and other amounts representing bonuses, will be subject to tax in full if received within eight years of the commencement of the policy. Two-thirds of such amounts received in the ninth and one-third of such amounts received in the tenth year of the policy will also be subject to tax. The Bill will not tax amounts paid as a result of death, accident or disability or of forfeiture or surrender of a policy in circumstances arising out of serious financial difficulties or amounts received in respect of superannuation policies. The Bill also contains a range of safeguards to prevent the use of devices, such as low or no interest loans or policies with nominal premiums in earlier years and substantial increases in later years to avoid the operation of the new arrangements. I emphasise that measures contained in the Bill, including the extension to 10 years of the taxable period, will not affect the use of life assurance as a means of providing adequate death cover for taxpayers and their families or for the long term provision of future needs through regular and sustained savings. Special Benefits for Disaster Victims After the disastrous bushfires and floods earlier in the year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced that the income tax law would be amended to exempt from tax the first two weeks' payments of social security special benefit to the victims of those and any similar future disasters. This measure, which the Bill gives effect to, will give these payments the same tax-free status that applies generally to relief payments provided for disaster from public appeal funds. At present all special payments are assesable income. This Bill will ensure that payments of special benefit for the first two weeks of eligibility will not be subject to tax if they are made in relation to a disaster that the Director- General of Social Security considers to be a major disaster affecting a substantial number of people. In other circumstances special benefits will remain subject to tax to the extent that a beneficiary's annual taxable income exceeds the tax threshold. The amendments will apply to payments made on or after 17 February 1983. Tax Avoidance Practices in relation to Employee Superannuation Funds Another provision in the Bill will change the income tax law as it relates to the taxation of payments from employer-sponsored employee superannuation funds- commonly called 'section 23F funds'. It extends to these funds provisions enacted in 1980 in relation to funds for the self-employed. This amendment is directed against a particularly distasteful tax avoidance practice containing clear elements of fraud against both the revenue and unsuspecting employees. It will, in accordance with the Government's announced policy in relation to blatant tax avoidance practices, apply with retrospective effect from 1 July 1977. The income tax law provides a number of significant taxation concessions for section 23F superannuation funds on the condition that those funds are operated in accordance with guidelines set out in the law. The proprietors of some businesses, however, establish superannuation funds ostensibly for the purpose of providing superannuation benefits for their employees and, after taking advantage of the taxation concessions for contributions and the tax-free treatment of the funds, wind up the funds. This is done in circumstances where the accumulated assets of the funds are paid out, not to the employees, but to the proprietors of the business concerned. The procedure is possible because employees are either not informed of their rights under the superannuation scheme or have their employment terminated in circumstances where they become disentitled to benefits from the fund. Sometimes employment is terminated only a few days before the employee reaches normal retirement age and would have become entitled to substantial benefits from the fund. The amendments contained in the Bill are designed to neutralise taxation benefits received from the use of this device in the past and ensure that it will not be practised in the future. It does this by providing that benefits received from a section 23F fund in breach of the rules of the fund or which are excessive in amount having regard to criteria specified in the existing law, are to be wholly subject to income tax in the hands of the recipient. Investment in Australian Films As announced in the Budget Speech, the tax concessions for investment in the production of qualifying Australian films are being reduced as part of the restructuring of assistance to the film industry. For eligible expenditure contracted for after Budget night, 23 August 1983, the special income tax deduction will generally be 133 per cent of the investment, in lieu of 150 per cent. The associated exemption from income tax in respect of the net revenue from a film will be 33 per cent of the investment, rather than 50 per cent. The exception to that general position is where an eligible investor takes up an interest in a film in place of an underwriter who would have been entitled to the higher concessions under arrangements made on or before 23 August 1983. Such an investor will qualify for the concessions at pre-Budget levels. These measures are estimated to save revenue of $1m for 1983-84 and $4m in a full year but this is more than offset by additional direct government assistance to the film industry through the Australian Film Commission. The Bill will also give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 21 June 1983, to facilitate the use of certain underwriting arrangements in the funding of film production budgets. A technical amendment to the present scheme of film investment tax incentives will recognise arrangements entered into by a producer with an underwriter so as to fulfil the basic legislative requirement that a film's budget be fully secured by the end of the financial year in which amounts are first expended in, or contributed to, the production of a film. The amendment will enable an investor who takes the place of the underwriter to qualify for the tax concessions without having been a party to the contract securing the film's budget. A further minor change to the film incentive scheme is being given effect by this Bill. It will provide for isolated cases in which films that were in production before the 1982-83 year, and unfinished when the recently modified incentive scheme came into effect on 13 January 1983, cannot, for technical reasons, at present attract concessions under either the modified scheme or the earlier scheme. Eligible investors in such films will be entitled to tax concessions on the basis of the earlier scheme. Interest Withholding Tax On 23 November 1983 I announced the Government's decision to extend the present exemption from interest withholding tax for interest paid on certain overseas issues of bearer debentures. Concern has been expressed in representations received by the Government over the difficulties of raising funds in certain overseas markets-most notably, the United States of America-through public or widely issued debentures which are in bearer form. To overcome these difficulties this Bill will extend the present exemption from interest withholding tax to cover interest on all overseas debenture issues, whether in bearer or registered form. This will eliminate any bias favouring public issues by way of bearer debentures over issues of registered debentures and will facilitate increased access by Australian companies to the financial markets of the United States of America. The extended exemption will apply in relation to interest paid on debentures issued after 23 November 1983. Where interest withholding tax becomes payable on interest on a post 23 November debenture issue paid before the date on which the amendment comes into operation, the tax will be refunded after that date. A technical explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in a memorandum that will be circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.15) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for reconsideration and report: redevelopment of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, Canberra, A.C.T. The proposal is for the stage 1 elements of a long term plan to redevelop the living, working and training facilities at the Royal Military College, Duntroon. It covers those initial works necessary for the effective transition of the College to its new role in centralised officer training following the opening in 1986 of the Australian Defence Force Academy. It will also provide for the medical care of military staff and cadets of both the Academy and the College. The major elements of the proposed work are: A new 36-bed hospital; extensions to and renovation of the existing cadets' mess; refurbishment of existing instruction blocks and conversion of buildings to cadet accomodation; a new physical fitness centre; and associated, siteworks, demolition, engineering services and landscaping. The estimated cost of the proposed works at August 1983 prices is $11,100,000. I table plans of the proposed work. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.16) —I move: That, in accordance with the provision 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. This proposal is for extensive renovation of Ceres House and the addition of five floors to enable the accommodation needs of the Australian Wheat Board's head office and its Victorian branch office to be met on the one site. The refurbished building will then comprise eight levels of accommodation, a semi- basement car park and utilities area and a roof level plant room. Laboratory facilities for quality monitoring will be included. The Joint Committee on Public Works reported that there is a need to provide accommodation for the head office, Victorian branch and quality monitoring facilities of the Australian Wheat Board. The Committee also concluded that redevelopment of Ceres House is the best of a number of options considered to satisfy the Board's accommodation needs. It noted that co-location of the head office and the Victorian branch should result in increased efficiency, including sharing of facilities and services. The Committee recommended construction of the work at an estimated cost of $7.17m at June 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.18) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: construction of accommodation for the National Institute of Dramatic Art, Kensington, N.S.W. The proposal is for the construction of new premises for the National Institute of Dramatic Art on a site on the campus of the University of New South Wales. The new accommodation will replace the Institute's old wooden and galvanised buildings at this University. The Joint Committee on Public Works has reported that there is a need for the work in the reference and has recommended its construction. Arising out of the Committee's conclusions and recomendations are some matters which I wish to address. As a result of its examination of the building design, the Committee has reported that it may be advisable to air condition the administration block of the proposed building, as traffic noise from an adjacent busy road may make it impossible for staff to work with windows open. The estimated cost of airconditioning the administration block as part of the main project is $180,000 . At this stage NIDA and the Department of Housing and Construction do not consider that air conditioning is necessary. It is intended that this matter will be reviewed in the light of actual experience after NIDA occupies its new premises. I have personally pursued this matter further to the point of ascertaining that other administrative buildings on the campus of the University of New South Wales, with the exception of the Vice-Chancellor's suite, are not air conditioned. Accordingly, I must agree with this judgment. The Committee has noted that design modifications were made in accordance with some of the wishes of local residents but has criticised the Department of Housing and Construction and NIDA for lack of consultation in the initial stages of development of the proposal. The development of this project was unusual. The original intention had been for the facilities to be located on the campus of the University of Sydney. After negotiations between that University and NIDA reached an impasse it was decided by NIDA to accept an alternative offer for a site from the University of New South Wales. Much of the available time for design had been lost during the negotiations and the time available for normal exposure of the proposal to the public before the Public Works Committee examination was somewhat reduced. This led to some confusion and concern by local residents. Honourable members should be aware that since the public hearing conducted by the former Committee in December 1982 there has been quite extensive liaison with the local residents. The Committee has noted in its report this redress of the earlier problems. The estimated cost of work is $4,450,000 at August 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(5.22) —I welcome the statement of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). Indeed, it is, as he has said, expedient that this work proceed. But it is more than expedient-it is very long overdue. I have been on the Board of the National Institute of Dramatic Art for, I think, about 12 years. This matter has been the principal subject of discussion in all those years. Various sites were proposed. As the Minister said, it seemed at a time that the buildings would be merged with the Seymour Theatre Centre. That was an exciting prospect. But the University of Sydney seemed basically unwilling to assume this responsibility or privilege. The University of New South Wales made its offer of the site on which the work is now to proceed. After so many years it is, indeed, a welcome development. The announcement of the decision to do this was made, of course, by the former Government. It is good to see that the present Government is proceeding with that decision. One has to look only at the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works to see, in view of NIDA's great achievements, how extraordinary is the present accommodation of NIDA. It consists of four old huts of World War II vintage-about 40 years old; two unlined galvanised iron sheds; the jockeys' changeroom at the old Kensington racecourse; the totalisator building of the old Kensington racecourse; and a galvanised iron structure-an old university lecture hall-with an unlined metal roof which is the NIDA theatre as well as the Parade Theatre. In those extraordinary unsatisfactory conditions NIDA has done amazing work. I think the contribution of NIDA to various aspects of the Australian theatrical profession from acting to technical production, design and direction is outstanding. I often think that in view of the deplorable standard of Sydney theatre at the moment NIDA is one of the few permanent operations which put on good productions. They are, of course, student productions but, compared with the tedious, didactic and tendentious work put on at most Sydney theatres at the moment, they stand out as something of an oasis. Quite apart from the Institute' s student productions, to which I was just referring, its training of students is of an extremely high international standard. It has been operating for many years in these extraordinarily difficult circumstances. It is, indeed, very welcome to see that permanent and suitable buildings are now to be built. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: That standing order 48A, as amended by sessional order of 24 August 1983, relating to the adjournment of the House, and standing order 103, 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings. Ministerial Statement Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-I wish to make a statement on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on power in Indo-China since 1975. That report was tabled in the Parliament in 1981 . I make no apologies for the fact that Indo-China has been a major foreign policy preoccupation of this Government. The problem of Cambodia, in all its many dimensions, is the greatest unresolved source of tension in South East Asia . It is not unnatural that we seek to offer, as a good neighbour, to help in the pursuit of a resolution of tensions which could beset our region for decades. To this end we have sought, without illusions as to the complexity of the problem, to build upon the mature and robust relationships established over many years with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and upon the growth of a more productive and comprehensive relationship with Vietnam in order to seek out areas in which dialogue on the problem can be encouraged. We have done those things. As a government which has good relations with all parties we have an opportunity to involve ourselves in this process and an obligation not to allow that opportunity to be missed. Moreover, we have an obligation to the Australian people. I have been greatly impressed in recent years by the compassion Australians have shown towards the suffering Khmer people. Their plight has aroused a response among Australians proportionately greater than in any other Western society. This is perhaps not surprising in view of our growing involvement in this region but I think it brings home to any government a recognition that the Khmer people's destiny has for too long been determined by others. Their plight is one which is to a great extent dictated by historical reality as a small nation. Like the Lao people, their future depends on how rival historical ambitions are resolved; for, in the end, the Government is conscious that the survival of the Khmer nation is at the centre of the dispute. Only a solution that guarantees their survival is acceptable; indeed, only such a solution can secure the interests of all concerned. I commend for honourable members' reading the report entitled 'Power in Indo- China since 1975' prepared by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence . While that report was tabled in 1981, the issues it raises are much in our minds now. Despite the two years since the report was drawn up, there is a striking degree of relevance in its comments and recommendations to both the continuing situation in Indo-China and the policies of this Government. There is broad concurrence in the report with the Government's policy in its emphasis on the need for due recognition of Vietnam's potential contribution to the region; on the desirability of promoting a peaceful solution to the present situation; and on encouraging dialogue, both at the regional level and through international efforts, to decrease regional tension in South East Asia. This concurrence is perhaps not surprising. The Committee has taken a broad and largely dispassionate view of its topic, and its findings reflect the reality of the situation. Sadly, that reality has not changed substantially in the past two years. Stalemate still faces Indo-China. Vietnam's relations with China and the ASEAN countries in general remain at best cool. Cambodia is still an occupied country, subject to guerilla activity especially in border areas, and is still reliant on international aid for the foreseeable future. The Australian Government remains concerned at the increase in Soviet influence in the Indo- Chinese region resulting from Vietnam's current close relationship with the Soviet Union. Such continuity with the findings of an all-party committee also points to the strength of shared community perceptions on Indo-China which spread across party lines. The Committee's study was prepared under the former Government, yet its findings fit well with this Government's current policy. It is especially important, in view of comments made by the Opposition in this House during this session, to note the unmistakable and significant elements of continuity in the approach of this Government and its predecessors. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), for instance, reminded the House on 18 October of his statement to the International Conference on Kampuchea in 1981. I should like to quote his remarks to that conference in some detail, to demonstrate the care with which he chose his words. He said that among the prerequisites for an acceptable settlement were 'the withdrawal of foreign forces from Kampuchea'; he mentioned the general history in the past decade of ' war, genocide, famine and the invasion and occupation of their territory by foreign forces' endured by the Khmer people; and he noted that 'there are still some 200,000 Vietnamese troops in Kampuchea, and a significant proportion of these are stationed close to the Thai-Kampuchean border: This Vietnamese presence in Kampuchea is challenged by forces belonging to the various Khmer groups'. He called for 'a phased withdrawal' to 'avoid the creation of a power vacuum which could result in the return to power of the Pol Pot regime'. He added: Australia does not deny that Vietnam has certain legitimate security interests of its own: However, that is no justification for their invasion of a neighbouring country. Similarly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly as Foreign Minister in 1980, had said: A peaceful and secure South East Asia cannot be achieved until a political settlement has been reached in Kampuchea which is acceptable to all parties concerned and which gives full opportunity to the Kampuchean people to determine their own style of government and way of life. We accept that Vietnam has legitimate interests to safeguard in regard to Kampuchea. What we cannot accept is that Vietnam and its allies should be able to go on refusing to discuss seriously the fundamental questions of the occupation of Kampuchea by foreign troops and the legitimacy of the regime in Phnom Penh. I emphasised Australia's unequivocal condemnation of Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia in talks with the ASEAN Foreign Ministers earlier this year, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) reminded this House on 1 November and again on 9 November that the Government in no way condoned Vietnam's action. We have repeated this point at the United Nations General Assembly and in discussion with ASEAN leaders. This Government, in close consultation with its regional neighbours, is seeking dialogue on the Cambodia question. I have quoted these passages to demonstrate that our predecessors largely shared our approach. No purpose is served for this country by attempts to exaggerate any differences of perception which may arise in such a complex policy area. The report of the Joint Committee provides a useful outline of the history of developments in Indo-China up until 1975. The history of the three decades from 1945 to 1975 brings out the lack of any longer-term Western perspective on an appropriate response to the aspirations of the Indo-Chinese people. Australian attitudes were formed around a policy of commitment of troops which is now recognised to have been a mistake. We are only slowly assimilating the lessons of that mistake and perceiving in the events of these 30 years the consistent thread, not of international communist expansionism, but of the struggle of the Vietnamese people for their independence. Moreover, before 1975 the community perception of Cambodia as a nation was, at the best, hazy. The need now to develop an understanding of events in Indo-China is important not simply as a means of exorcising our feelings of guilt about the past. Events since 1975 have shown us the peril of excluding Indo-China from our perception of the future of South East Asia. There should be no iron curtain in this part of the world. The future of Australia lies in developing a mature and balanced set of relationships with its neighbours in South East Asia. Indo-China is part of that neighbourhood. There can be no secure future for the whole of South East Asia without an accommodation between Vietnam and its neighbours. This Government wishes to pursue the development of its relations with South East Asia by developing with Vietnam a mature and productive relationship. Eight years ago Indo-China emerged from over three decades of conflict into what was hoped would be a period of post-war reconstruction and recovery. Many Australians breathed a sigh of relief; although the expected post-war period would not be easy, and although the installation of communist regimes in all Indo-Chinese capitals was a result which few found desirable, peace would have to be better than the decades of conflict that had preceded it. The ASEAN countries also made it clear that they were prepared to work for a constructive and stable relationship with the three Indo-Chinese states. Yet by 1979 many of these hopes were dashed. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge had turned Cambodia into a wasteland. In addition to the Khmer Rouge reign of terror within Cambodia, the regime's aggressive actions against Vietnam had revived fears of Pol Pot's regional aspirations. The consequent Vietnamese armed intervention had touched off a series of population movements that brought a refugee flood right to Thailand's borders. Perhaps even more than 1975, 1979 was a critical year in South East Asian affairs. The very survival of the Cambodian nation seemed to be in danger; Thailand's security appeared threatened; Vietnam's armed forces responded to provocative actions across its borders by openly intervening in Pol Pot's Cambodia, where they remain to this day; and hostilities occurred on the Chinese -Vietnamese border. The results were hard for outsiders to assimilate. Even now, four years later, the issues not only remain unresolved but have led to a new form of stalemate in Indo-China which offers further risks of instability and of great power involvement in the region. There are many aspects of the events of 1979 which Australia cannot accept. Vietnamese forces invaded another country in an action which, although presented in terms of a crusade to save the Cambodians from Pol Pot, also followed sustained attacks by the Pol Pot regime into Vietnamese territory and realised Vietnamese security objectives at the expense of the independent status of Cambodia. The continued presence of Vietnam's forces in Cambodia is unacceptable. The heightened tensions on the Chinese- Vietnamese border, which have continued, are also a regrettable cause of instability. On Thailand's border with Cambodia over 200,000 Khmer civilians are caught in a refugee situation which bears many signs of perpetuating itself. Finally, and perhaps most ominously, the new situation has brought an intensification of relations between the Soviet Union and Vietnam which can only work to the disadvantage of all of us in the region. The Soviet presence and Soviet ambitions not only serve to focus great power rivalry in the area but also leave Vietnam almost exclusively dependent on its Soviet benefactor. Since 1979 we have thus been faced with a series of problems in South East Asia considerably more menacing and intractible than those we faced in 1975. Looking for a way to resolve these problems, we are faced with a multitude of proposals. There are two, among many, conventional schools of thought. The first would urge the accpetance, however reluctant, of the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia and the Heng Samrin regime as an inescapable reality. The second, outraged by Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia in 1979, would advocate continued economic, political, and military pressure on Vietnam through support for the Cambodian coalition which includes Pol Pot. Immediate practical considerations can be seen as giving some validity to both of these schools of thought: ASEAN has the strength and unity to stand behind Thailand and the Cambodian coalition in their resistance to Vietnam; while on the other hand Vietnam can take comfort from the fact that the situation on the ground in Cambodia is largely in its favour, despite resistance to its occupation, especially in the border areas. But other realities remain. A sizable refugee concentration exists on the Thai-Cambodian border, while inside Cambodia the brutality of the Pol Pot forces has not been forgotten. This perpetuates a situation which prevents the Khmer people from addressing the task of reviving their economy, restoring their food production, and finding again their identity as a people. In those divisive circumstances Soviet influence in the area can only increase, particularly given Vietnam's massive reliance on Soviet assistance to maintain its military effort. Moreover, in terms of people, a new generation of Soviet- trained and influenced officials, teachers and experts is coming to the fore. In Cambodia the Khmer people will increasingly have only Vietnam and the Eastern bloc to which to turn, and Vietnam's horizons will be narrowed even further by the lack of any access to the rest of the world for economic, educational and other support. With all these considerations in mind it seems clear to us that what must be pursued is a comprehensive Cambodian solution based on the acceptance by Vietnam of an appropriate accommodation with its neighbours; phased withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia matched by an effective arrangement to prevent Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces going back into Cambodia; an Act of self-determination for Cambodia; the creation of conditions for the peaceful return of displaced Cambodians to Cambodia; the acceptance by all parties that Cambodia is neutral, independent and non-aligned; and the restoration of normal relations on the part of Vietnam with China, ASEAN and the West. In seeking to achieve this I remind honourable members again of the very similar words of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Corangamite, which I endorse and which are an essential precondition to any arrangements which have a chance of being accepted by the parties principal to the whole issue, and therefore of working. He said in his address to the International Conference on Kampuchea in July 1981: The prerequisites for an acceptable settlement are the withdrawal of foreign forces from Kampuchea; an act of self-determination by the Khmer people; the establishment of conditions which will allow Khmer refugees to return; continued humanitarian assistance to the Khmer people; a guarantee of non-interference in the internal affairs of Kampuchea; and an undertaking that a fully independent Kampuchea will not act against the interests of its neighbours. As I noted earlier, he also said: Australia does not deny that Vietnam has certain legitimate security interests of its own. However, that is no justification for their invasion of a neighbouring country. Even so, we do not insist on an immediate withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea. A phased withdrawal would avoid the creation of a power vacuum which could result in a return to power of the Pol Pot regime. I have said on innumerable occasions this year that I have no magic solution, nor does the Government. I do not delude myself that the situation is other than extremely complex. The policies pursued by the main parties to the Indo-China situation were firmly fixed in reaction to the events of 1978-79. Given the cataclysmic events of that year, it is not surprising that positions of principle have been firmly set up. Countries are entitled to preserve their principles. What can change, however, are the modalities by which they are implemented. Many Western politicians preached during the fifties and the sixties that it would be capitulation to go against the West's principles by recognising China. By 1970, however, it had become clear that Western countries did not have to capitulate to set up sound and mature relations with China. A veil was lifted once countries realised they could talk to each other. In relation to Indo-China, I do not say that the situation is analogous. Indeed , it is a good deal too complex to be approached in terms of the simplistic misapprehensions and misunderstandings of the Cold War period. Relations between China, Vietnam, the ASEAN countries and the West at large are firmly interlocked with global issues, including the many levels of the Sino-Soviet dispute. In urging on the parties some re-assessment of positions, some readiness to explore dialogue, Australia is playing a sober and responsible role as a member of the South East Asian region. We are not without credentials on the issue. We are firmly committed to the series of United Nations General Assembly resolutions on the situation in Cambodia which have been proposed by the ASEAN countries, including this year's resolution, which we voted for on 27 October following a statement in the debate on the situation in which we explained our attitude to the resolution. Our firm support for the ASEAN position flows from the congruency of the principles on which it is based and the principles we advocate in pursuit of a Cambodia solution. In seeking to facilitate dialogue between the parties, Australia is not lining up against old friends or playing one side off against another. In speaking to Vietnam, for example, I have been aided by our treaty links with the United States, our close and friendly ties with ASEAN, and our warm and increasingly important relationship with China. I have taken no steps that will detract from these links. Indeed, Vietnam in its response has offered the view that our role is enhanced by our ability to talk freely to all parties to the Indo-China problem, including its adversaries. I would not wish to give the impression that there is anything revolutionary in this approach. The new element Australia contributes is that it is a close neighbour of the South East Asian countries and that its links with its existing friends are extremely close. They will remain so. I am conscious that I will sometimes require a degree of tolerance from these old friends when we say things they may not always agree with; but recent weeks have demonstrated that we have developed the habit of talking freely to each other and doing so directly. I am confident it will be appreciated that broader links will not evolve at the expense of existing friendships, which are valued highly by this Government, as by its predecessors. Moreover, I hope it will be accepted that Australia has developed its own foreign policy perceptions. We may be a young nation and one which has only since the Second World War accepted the task of developing its own relations with the world. It should by now be clear, however, that we no longer feel the need to borrow our foreign policy perceptions, that we make up our own mind, read the evidence ourselves, and listen carefully to perceptions which have evolved in our own community. Australia's earlier attitudes to Indo-China and its 1965 to 1973 military involvement did not provide a basis for a continuing and realistic policy. Since 1975 not only the opponents of Australia's involvement in Vietnam, but also those who supported it, have had to build on the new reality in Indo-China. The fundamental continuing basis for our approach has been the Australian Labor Party's policy before 1975 of recognising the strength of the desire for independence on the part of all the countries of Indo-China. As in the case of our relations with China, the Labor Party alone has developed the seeds of a realistic policy approach. What in 1965 was heresy, in 1983 has become commonplace. Not all the events since 1975 have been to our liking, but there are some lessons to be learnt from the disasters of 1945 to 1975, particularly about the dangers of outside involvement. It is a matter for grave concern to Australia and its regional neighbours that similar risks exist again today. Since 1975 the Indo-China situation has also brought another great reality to Australian minds, one which may take even longer to absorb than the communist victories in Indo-China: The arrival in Australia, including direct boat arrival , of a sizable Indo-Chinese community. I would like to address those who have left their homelands in Indo-China and are now settled in Australia. I understand the fears and experiences which brought about their departure and which must be expected to colour their attitude towards their homeland and particularly towards the Government in Hanoi. I know that they are conscious of the proud nationalist tradition of their homeland and do not want to let that be forgotten in the free and tolerant atmosphere of this continent. The changes since 1975 in their homeland have clearly not been to their liking and the policies of the Australian Government in reacting to those changes may not always meet with their approval. It is, however, realistic to accept that many different points of view co-exist ; and we cannot cut ourselves off from Vietnam because its Government does not act in the way we would want it to. Moreover, having relations with Vietnam and building up those relations does not mean approval for all of its actions, such as its policy on human rights. But the broader interests the Government must look to is in maintaining and indeed widening contact with Vietnam so that its Government is susceptible to outside opinion, including respect for the feelings of former Vietnamese citizens and their desire to have their families united in their new homelands. In the end, it is only through more productive relations based on mutual respect that we can ensure that we are listened to responsively when we press our point of view with Hanoi. For this reason I do not accept any policy of isolation and punishment of Vietnam. This substitutes a policy of frustration for one of positive action. Furthermore, punishing Vietnam simply does not work. We are all victims of the misconceived practices which have marked the West's dealings with Vietnam from 1945 until now. The Vietnamese, as a proud and resilient people, want to be treated with dignity and will deal only on that basis. This we will do without, in the process, sanctioning their Government's errors or overlooking its excesses. I ask the Vietnamese community to understand this process, and to see it as part of the way in which a pluralist Australia must seek to look after the interests of all its citizens. I do not accept that the present regime in Phnom Penh is any guarantee of Khmer survival. It is too clearly a regime dependent on Vietnam; the Government itself and its administrative aparatus is too fragile; too much of the talent which should be at its disposal is dead, politically alienated, or has fled the country; and the political basis of the regime is too narrowly founded on a simple fear of Pol Pot's return. Australia will give what reasonable assistance it can to the Khmer in ways that will help them to get on their feet economically and to revive their agriculture. Sadly, however, they are far from that goal. This is the tragic kernel of the Cambodian and indeed the Indo- Chinese problem. We will use our ingenuity to address it but will not, in the process, sanction the regime of Heng Samrin. This Government, as did its predecessor, has made it clear that it will not take any action which could be seen as recognising the claims to legitimacy of the Khmer people, the major part of the coalition resistance. We cannot support any strategy based on the Pol Pot forces, whose ruthlessness and disregard for democratic values and human rights are virtually unrivalled. I see much to admire in the nationalist aspirations of the non-communist Khmer leaders, Prince Sihanouk and Mr Son Sann, and respect their role in serving as rallying points for Khmer opinion, but it is regrettable that they have locked themselves into a military situation which relies on, and can only be sustained by, the co- operation of the Khmer Rouge. I intend to maintain my contacts with the principal parties to the dispute. I have had frequent discussions with the ASEAN Foreign Ministers as well as talks with the governments of Vietnam, Laos and China. I continued these contacts in New York during this year's United Nations General Assembly session. During November the Prime Minister and I visited Bangkok for talks with Thailand's leaders, who welcomed our productive role in the region and agreed that Australia and Thailand share the same objectives. In New Delhi at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting the Prime Minister discussed aspects of the Cambodian problem which are important to both ASEAN and Australia with the Malaysian and Singaporean delegation leaders, while I visited Indonesia for discussions with the Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, in which we agreed to maintain closest possible consultation on Indo-China. The Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Mr Thach, will be visiting Australia in March 1984 and I shall follow up with him then the questions we have pursued in our earlier sessions. We have kept in close touch on this issue with the American administration and Secretary of State Shultz has commended the role I have sought to play. We shall continue to take other opportunities to pursue a solution of the Cambodian problem, such as the discussions which will occur during the Prime Minister's forthcoming visits to China and the North Asia region. I have spoken at some length on Australia's policies in this important area because I welcome the product of the 1981 Joint Committee's work, particularly as many of its recommendations are valid today. This Government has sought to pull together these thoughts and the many other threads into a consistent policy ; not one that seeks spectacular or foolhardy results but one that recognises that much patience is required. The Government is aware of the need for a geat deal of careful talking, and is prepared to face the likelihood of many discouragements and ultimately, perhaps, the prospect of a continued bleak stalemate. We do, however, have an obligation to try and, in the process, to stake some of our national imagination on the development of an intelligent and broad perspective regarding the future of South East Asia. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-The report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the subject of 'Power in Indo-China since 1975' was concluded on 11 June 1981. It remains a valuable account, but it clearly lacks, inevitably, the qualities of authority that it otherwise would have because it is now dated by two years. During that two years, Vietnam has demonstrated great resistance to the idea of international negotiations over Cambodia, particularly United Nations sponsored negotiations which could open the door for a settlement leading to absence of foreign occupation and the establishment of a non-aligned Cambodia responsive to the wishes of the people. I refer honourable members to page 78 of the report before the House. Honourable members will note that in 1980, President Suharto of Indonesia and Prime Minister Hussein Onn of Malaysia issued a declaration calling for Indo- China to take steps to free itself from undue influences of Russia and China. At the United Nations General Assembly in September of that year the Vietnamese maintained their condemnation of the Association of South East Asian Nations resolution, but the Foreign Minister of Vietnam referring, inter alia, to the Kuantan declaration, announced that his Government 'was ready to hold immediate discussions with the ASEAN countries . . .' There appeared to be emerging prospects favourable to negotiations based on an implicit recognition by ASEAN that Vietnam had legitimate security interests. I point out that the resolution in the United Nations sponsored by ASEAN included a statement that an international conference should 'guarantee that an independent and sovereign Kampuchea will not be a threat to its neighbours'. Clearly, any inference to be drawn from the actions and statements of this Government that ASEAN had a totally negative policy to the issue of Vietnam is not borne out by this report, dated though it is. ASEAN earnestly sought then, and still seeks now, to go down the path of negotiation. The statements that the Minister for Foreign Affairs ( Mr Hayden) has made have tended to create that presumption and implicitly the assumption that the previous Government had missed opportunities by its strong backing for ASEAN diplomatic initiatives. There is another lesson to be learned. There is no evidence to show that ASEAN had failed to give scope to any Vietnamese interest in a settlement. It is clear that Vietnam decided to withhold itself from pressing issues to a settlement. I mention this because earlier this year the Government from time to time gave the impression that its diplomacy had the potential to encourage Vietnam to think again and that this prospect more than justified the problems that were opening up for Australian relations with ASEAN. Thus, for the best part of the life of this Government, great emphasis has been given to a process which, as the Foreign Minister himself has admitted again today, has very little prospect of bearing fruit. The dissenting report from members of the then Opposition was optomistic about a solution if the Government took steps to move Vietnam from a postion of isolation. They adduced no evidence for this point of view, but it was considered that Australian aid would hold a key for an improved relationship with Vietnam, which in turn would unlock the doors to negotiation and accommodation between Vietnam and ASEAN. It is this view which caused the Committee, in the report before the House, to divide on a crucial point of party line. The reality is that Vietnam receives from the Soviet Union $3m to $5m a day. In addition, there are strong party and philosophical links. Moreover, the present Secretary-General has a reputation for holding strong pro-Soviet views. Therefore, regettably, there is very little evidence to suggest that the people in power are restive about their relations with the Soviet Union. Let us look more closely at Vietnam's candidature for conciliation. It has the fourth largest army in the world. It is backed by massive Soviet aid. It has a defence treaty with the Soviet Union, which has access to a major naval facility and air fields. It insists on dominating Cambodia and Laos. It is run by a small pro-Soviet clique of which one of the great strongmen is Le Duan, the Secretary- General. In a recent paper given by a scholar at an Australian National University seminar the basic strength of Le Duan was assessed. His family connections are powerful. His elder son reportedly runs the secret police. Another son is in charge of the missile system. A brother-in-law runs the intelligence system. The brother-in-law's brother runs the entire television, radio and propaganda services and controls ideological education. His son-in-law is commander of the air force. The issue is that Vietnam has military forces of up to 180,000 in Cambodia and 40,000 to 50,000 in Laos. I mention Laos because the Minister, in his statement, seems to have forgotten about it entirely. I recall for the House an answer to a question I asked him in this House last week about the continued occupation of Laos by Vietnamese forces. On page 3050 of Hansard of 30 November this year the Foreign Minister is recorded as having said: First of all, there are no problems about the Vietnamese troops being in Laos. There is no dispute that I am aware of in any part of the region in connection with that. Mr Anthony interjected: No problems? Mr Hayden replied: They are there by invitation of the Government of Laos. I just quote the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled 'Power in Indo China since 1975' which the Minister has commended today . I quote from page 38 of the historical section of that report, dealing with Laos: The danger to the Lao Government would be more serious if the 40-50,000 Vietnamese stationed in the country were to withdraw. A footnote states: The presence of these troops was 'legitimised' in 1977 when Vietnam and Laos signed a Twenty-Five-Year Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation, which included a provision relating to mutual military assistance. The Vietnamese troops had in fact been in Laos since the 1960s. The dissenting report by the then Opposition members headed by the then honourable member for Swan (Mr Beazley) stated: Given continuing instability in Indo China, the historical factors associated with Vietnamese military occupation of Laos and Kampuchea, and the Soviet willingness to provide a level of aid that permits continuing Vietnamese occupation . . . I just mention those points to bring to the attention of the House the fact that Vietnamese troops are occupying Laos. Some sort of stood-over treaty may allow them to have some semblance of authority for being there, but the fact remains that 40,000 to 50,000 occupying troops remain in Laos, and that was completely dismissed by the Minister in his response today. The military activities of the Vietnamese in Cambodia have created a massive refugee problem which consumes a great deal of international concern and, further, has destabilised the border with Thailand as armed resistance groups have decided to make a stand there. The Government has, in the process of exposing its policy, taken an inexplicable position with ASEAN. In Bangkok in June the Foreign Minister not only told ASEAN that it was futile to support military resistance to the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia but also made it public to the Press that he had done so. This action was taken before the Minister embarked on his visit to Hanoi. It was very like Joseph Kennedy in war- time London telling President Roosevelt that Hitler would win the war. It is this aspect of the Minister's position which set alight ASEAN concerns and it has come to the surface over the issue of the co-sponsorship of the resolution. Much attention has been paid to the consequential issue of co-sponsorship but, clearly, to tell ASEAN in effect that Vietnam will win and to make that view public had a most fundamental bearing on ASEAN concern. Let us look at this coalition issue. Prince Sihanouk is now occupying the Democratic Kampuchea seat in the United Nations. The effect of this development might be gauged by a reference to page 78 of the report which predicts that increasing adverse international feeling about the Khmer Rouge would lead to a decline in support for excluding the Heng Samrin regime. But in fact, this year, in 1983, Vietnam and its Soviet bloc allies felt so weakened that it did not even press for the credentials to vote in the General Assembly. In this statement the Minister has the effrontery to imply that this Opposition is departing from policies adopted by the Fraser Government. The Fraser Government withdrew recognition from Pol Pot. When the coalition concept emerged it did not reject it; it made the decision to monitor developments and, in the light of those developments, evaluate its position on the ASEAN backing for coalition. But it is not a coalition except on paper. The non-communist resistance which the Foreign Minister chooses to say should not be supported by ASEAN has never been denounced by the Fraser Government. Who are we to discourage and undermine the efforts of a sacrificial resistance, a non- communist resistance by Khmer people to the occupation of their homeland by Vietnam? The Minister totally misrepresents the practical separation that exists between the Son Sann resistance and the Khmer Rouge. He says: It is regrettable that they-- Son Sann and Prince Sihanouk - have locked themselves into a military situation which relies on, and can only be sustained by, the co-operation of the Khmer Rouge. I repeat that this is a totally unsubstantiated statement which does not reflect the reality on the ground or diplomatically. It is this kind of inaccuracy which bedevils the Government's approach to ASEAN and to its understanding of the work done by the previous Government. I repeat that ASEAN efforts to negotiate with Vietnam were supported by the Fraser Government. ASEAN efforts to give support to non-communist resistance to Vietnamese occupation were never publicly discouraged or discounted. The crucial thing is that the Government opposes all efforts to resist physically the occupation of Cambodia by Vietnam. It discredits deliberately, as it does in this statement, the efforts of Prince Sihanouk and Son Sann to preserve a Khmer resistance to what is occurring in its homeland at the hands of the Vietnamese. The Fraser Government never had any such discreditable policy and if the Minister has been so advised he has been advised wrongly. Let him not push the fiction borne of this delusion that the policy he is enforcing on ASEAN is a Fraser policy. It is not. It is tragic in Australian history when the Australian Government sets out to misconstrue, misrepresent and undermine the sacrificial efforts of non-communist Cambodians to resist with all the resources they can command the occupation of their country. How can we accept without reserve the Government's efforts to discount the fears of the Khmer leaders and ASEAN leaders that the settlement policy that Vietnam has announced is essentially benign? In the face of concern and claims that Vietnam is settling Vietnamese in Cambodia as a policy of occupation, the Government is saying that all that is happening is that the Vietnamese formerly in Cambodia are returning. In this House I put down a series of questions designed to discover the degree of authority behind the Government's views. It appears that the Australian position which is being communicated to this Parliament and internationally is the position described to the Foreign Minister by his Vietnamese counterpart, Co Thach. In Hansard of 1 December this year this Minister, in answer to a question without notice, is reported as saying: The reports of these government directives and of an influx of Vietnamese settlers into Cambodia led me to raise that issue with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Nguyen Co Thach, during my visit to Hanoi earlier this year. Our information is that most of these Vietnamese settlers were in Cambodia before 1970 and have been returning under a resettlement arrangement. There were approximately 500,000 Vietnamese settlers in Cambodia before 1970. We would be deeply disturbed if reports of an influx of Vietnamese settlers in a deliberate and sustained program to disturb the balance in Cambodia's population were to be substantiated. So it is open for any reasonable person to assume the Minister received reassurances from Co Thach and that until the Government had evidence, which is clearly very elusive, that these reassurances were not valid he would take the best view of the situation. The report before the Parliament contains a critical difference between the position of the Labor Party and that of the parties in opposition in this chamber. This difference has been carried into government by the Labor Party and in the process of the application of Labor Party policy great problems were created for our relations with ASEAN. The Minister claims Australia has pursued its policies soberly and responsibly. I leave it to honourable members to judge whether the uncomfortable public dialogue, involving at times all members of ASEAN, can be reasonably held to be the work of sobriety and responsibility. On this matter I draw on the view of a Singapore academic who was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald last week. He said: In the flurry of generally strong media reaction from the ASEAN region to Canberra's recent action, it is easy for Australia to forget that the worst of all possible worlds is to have to deal with ASEAN countries collectively when they have been antagonised individually. It is pure cheek for the Minister to allow himself the luxury of asserting that the Opposition departed from previous policies. I have endeavoured to illustrate the problems of this deliberately propagated misconception. It is clear that ASEAN has not behaved out of a concern that the Government was applying the policy of its predecessors. It recognises the difference. I am sure that if this were true the Government would not have hesitated to say so but, unfortunately, it is without scruples when it comes to deceiving the people of Australia. The statement by the Minister attests to this fact. Mr MORRISON(St George) —by leave-The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) seems to have some difficulty in comprehending the nature of the coalition in Kampuchea. It is composed of three parts. In fact, it is locked in- I can only stress this again-to the Pol Pot component of the coalition. There is the Son Sann part of the coalition, the Pol Pot part and that part that has loyalties to former President Sihanouk. I think there was an attempt deliberately to mislead the House about the nature of the coalition that was formed which is supported by China and the countries of the Association and South East Asian Nations, some to a greater degree than others. Mr MacKellar —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member has suggested that I sought deliberately to mislead the House. I take exception to that. That privilege is taken up by the Government side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —This is not the time for a personal explanation . I do not see any substance in the point of order. If the honourable member wishes he may make a personal explanation at the proper time. Mr MORRISON —Certainly the honourable member has confused the House in the presentation he has just made. I make it clear for the House that the coalition is formed of three parts and that the Pol Pot section of the coalition is an integral section. It is absurd to talk about a non-communist coalition when it is very much bound up with the Pol Pot regime. As the current Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I welcome the response of the Government, belated though it is. In fact, the report was tabled on 10 June 1981. The honourable member for Warringah made the comment that the report did not substantiate the observations that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) made. I point out that one of the main recommendations of the report that the Committee tabled in June 1981 was that Australia should discourage diplomatic support for the Democratic Kampuchean Regime. That is spelt out in very simple terms. I went through the speech I made when that report was tabled. I found a curious echo of what is happening today. In my speech, which is recorded on page 3426 of Hansard of 10 June 1981 I said: I noticed in the newspaper today a report of a threat by the Singaporean Minister for Foreign Affairs which is directly relevant to the matters discussed in the report of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee. It was reported that if Australia did not vote in favour of the Pol Pot regime that would be a black mark, to use Mr Rajaratnam's phrase, against Australia. Things have not changed. That statement was made when the honourable member for Warringah was associated with the Fraser Government. Another recommendation of the Committee has been dealt with with assiduity by the present Government. I will read the recommendation. It states: The Government should utilise its relationship with ASEAN to encourage all forms of dialogue between ASEAN countries and Indo China which may help decrease tension in the region, and promote a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Kampuchea. Australia should also continue to lend its support to international efforts aimed at decreasing regional tension. That recommendation by the Joint Parliamentary Committee was agreed to by all members of the Committee, including the then Government members and the now Government members. That is precisely what the Australian Government of today, under the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), has implemented. The Government, has, in fact, carefully implemented the major recommendations of the report. Reference was made to the dissenting report. That dissent was not along party lines. I observe to the House that one of the members of the then Government, Senator Sim, associated himself with the dissenting report which dealt only with the question of the resumption of aid to Vietnam. To indicate how Australia might contribute to the resolution of the Kampuchean question I will quote from the dissenting report. It stated: We should not delude ourselves that Vietnam is likely to withdraw its forces from Kampuchea until it is assured that a government friendly to its interest's is firmly established in Kampuchea. The prospects for a resolution of the Indo Chinese problem in the short term are not bright. However, in the longer term an accommodation is possible and we should direct our efforts to this eventuality. In the nature of the process there will of necessity be compromises in the positions taken by all interested parties. A more flexible Australian position will assist in this process. I compliment the Australian Government, particularly the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in adopting that policy and in adopting a more flexible Australian position in the process. Furthermore, I compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the very sound and sensible statement that he has made today on a subject which we all recognise is enormously complex. Reports and Ministerial Statement Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —I table, pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, the annual reports for 1981-82 of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation. The report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust includes the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1982 together with the report of the Auditor-General with respect to those statements. I also table for the information of honourable members, as I am required to do, a further report by the Auditor-General drawing my attention to certain other matters of concern to him which have arisen in the course of his examination of the statements. Motion (by Mr Cohen)-by leave-agreed to: That this House in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908 authorise the publication of the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust for the year 1981-82. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —by leave-The Auditor-General's report on the financial statements of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust deals with matters primarily of a technical nature. Corrective action has already been taken on one of these. The remaining matters, some of which deal with accounting policies that have previously been given full and careful consideration, will be further examined in the light of the Auditor-General's observations. The further report deals with the performance of the Trust in relation to certain investment transactions. The report expresses concern about some aspects of the Trust's performance. It concludes by stating: . . . there may even be indications of an element of recklessness in the way that some of the decisions to incur expenditure or to undertake investments were reached. However, the report goes on to say: Whether any such indications would persist given a fuller knowledge and understanding of all the relevant facts and circumstances is a question that could be answered only after a more detailed examination than it has been possible to carry out in the course of the Audit. The Auditor-General has nevertheless observed that the opinion he has formed is not calling into question the soundness of the investment decisions made. The Chairman of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust has provided me with a letter in answer to the points raised by the Auditor-General. I have not come to any conclusion about those actions of the Trust which are the subject of the Auditor-General's report. Contributions made by members of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and income earned from the investment of those contributions are held in the Superannuation Fund and are used to finance the employee-financed share of benefits payable under the scheme. The income of the Fund is itself a very important element in the benefits which contributors receive. If members of the scheme are to receive more than a minimum return on their contributions it is necessary that the Trust should be able to invest with regard to expected return as well as to security. With this in mind, it would not be appropriate for the Trust to confine its investments to those that guarantee absolute security. At the same time, it must be expected that the management of the Fund will reflect a high standard of care and prudence, and a due regard for the overall security of the Fund's investments. In maintaining a proper balance between these different considerations the Trust must often face a difficult task. Nevertheless, the Government and the contributors are entitled to be assured that it is being carried out carefully and prudently. The matters raised in the further report of the Auditor-General will need to be thoroughly examined. The Government will give early attention to the manner in which this examination is to be undertaken. The Chairman has offered to stand aside as Chairman while the examination proceeds. However, the Trust is currently engaged in complex investment activities and proposals. Resignations and retirements from the Trust this year have left the Chairman as the only member of the Trust with more than recent acquaintance with the investments concerned. The continuing conduct of these matters, which are significant to the interests of contributors, could be made more difficult if the knowledge and experience of the Chairman in regard to them was not available in the deliberations of the Trust. It has therefore been decided that the Chairman will take leave of absence from his present position during the examination, but will continue to serve the Trust in the capacity of an ordinary member of the trust. The Commissioner for Superannuation, who has acted since July 1983 as a member of the Trust while consultations related to filling of current vacancies on the Trust proceeded, will continue to do so. The appointment of a third member of the Trust is under urgent consideration. I shall of course inform the House further on the matters raised by the Auditor-General after the conclusion of the examination. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-The statement just read out to the House by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) certainly brings into focus a number of points when one reads the Auditor-General's report to the Minister on the financial statements of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. In that report a number of wide claims are made about the operation of the Fund. In particular, at the end of the report the Auditor-General states: I have not been satisfied that the management of the very substantial investment portfolio for which the Trust is responsible has been shown to be of an appropriate standard of competence and professionalism. Indeed, there may even be indications of an element of recklessness . . . Those are very serious charges about such a substantial investment fund in Australia. I regret that the Minister has not provided us with a copy of the letter of the Chairman of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust because it is quite obvious that in that letter answers are given to the accusations made in the Auditor-General's report. In fairness to the Chairman, it would have been only proper to have tabled the letter at the same time. There are always two sides to every story. I think that not tabling the letter is a weakness in the presentation. It is worth reflecting on the fact that this report of the Auditor-General makes judgment on only the 1981-82 annual report of the Investment Trust. We are now rapidly coming to the end of calendar year 1983 and most financial institutions ought to have released their financial reports for 1982-83. Recently the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations held an inquiry into the reports of the Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation. I am told the inquiry concerned the 1980-81 reports. The Superannuation Fund appears to be at least a year behind in the presentation of its annual report. If that is the case, the management certainly needs kicking along. I recommend to the Minister that he look at the Senate Committee's recommendation that if the Fund's final report for 1982-83 cannot be produced by the end of the calendar year an interim report ought to be made available. I will just briefly comment on some specific aspects of the report. There is no doubt that most of the items raised by the Auditor-General have a very heavy tax implication. One has to look at the tax implications of these items and at what they have been set out to achieve. A number of matters have been criticised and I suspect that has been done because people in the Auditor-General's Office are sticking to the rule of law rather than to what is commercial practice. The first item mentioned is the imputation of interest as an item of income in the current year. It is quite clear that if one were running a superannuation fund one would need a notional view of what income would be available because retirements would affect it. In order to run a proper superannuation fund, which would continue for many decades, I think it is appropriate to impute interest as an item of income in the current year. I am not so impressed with some of the activities on the real estate side, which were mentioned in the report. I find it very difficult to understand exactly what was going on in the case of Chatswood Chase. It is a very unusual way of handling contracts. I think the switching of securities has been misunderstood by the Auditor. If the securities were continued to be held at their face value or book value, as they are required to be held under the 30-20 rule, quite clearly these major institutions would have gone broke during the time of the high swings in interest, because as interest rates go up the value of security goes down. As one is required by law to hold very substantial numbers of government securities, both direct and indirect, to regularly value these at the market price would have brought about a very substantial loss. I recommend that the Auditor-General look at the commercial significance of that rather than represent it in the way he has. Judgments are passed on the valuation of investments in the German Creek (Coal) Joint Venture. The Auditor-General goes to some pains to point out the goodwill aspect. That might be great in hindsight. I go on further towards the end of the report, where the Auditor-General reflects on the authority of the Chairman to make advances of more than half a million dollars. I conclude by saying that in this area it would be commercial commonsense to grant the Chairman additional authority to approve transactions of over half a million dollars because of the very few transactions in which the authority of the Chairman would be needed to go beyond that amount in making quick decisions. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed on the following paper presented by Mr O'Keefe: Joint Committee of Public Accounts-222nd Report-Auditor-General's Report 1981- 82 and on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the House take note of the paper. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(8.00) —The 222nd report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is an examination of the March 1982 Auditor-General 's report. Each year the Committee examines recently published reports of the Auditor-General. Following the tabling of the March 1982 report, the Committee sought written submissions from five departments in respect of seven of the items raised in the report. After discussions with the Auditor-General and departmental officers, the Committee selected one item, HMAS Tobruk, for public inquiry. Another item, Commonwealth Medical Benefits: Reimbursement to Registered Medical Benefits Organisations, was addressed during the inquiry into medical fraud and overservicing. Submissions were received in respect of the Department of Defence-mobile radio terminals and helicopter for FFG-07 class guided missile frigates; the Department of Home Affairs and Environment-Norfolk Island administration; the Department of Primary Industry-levies, tax and charges; and the Department of Social Security-Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. Dealing with the Department of Defence, mobile radio terminals, the Auditor- General noted that in respect of this project a significant commitment of expenditure on production items had been approved before prototype testing was completed. This occurred notwithstanding the Committee's recommendations in the 137th and 150th reports, which concluded that contracts of a nature such as this with significant developmental content required the production of a prototype which should be subject to exhaustive testing before production proceeded. In the case of the mobile radio terminals, the Department has stated that production of the units will not proceed until all tests required under the contract have been successfully completed on each of the initial production items. The Department is confident that the extensive level of testing specified will give a reasonable assurance that the equipment will perform satisfactorily. The Auditor-General also criticised the tender evaluation process which it considered to be inconsistent with stated Government policy. The Committee shared the Auditor-General's concern and will be considering this matter in more detail during its inquiry into project management in the Defence Force. In respect of the helicopter for FFG-07 class guided missile frigates, the Department of Defence is procuring four FFG-07 class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. The purchase includes 12 helicopters for tactical surveillance and reconnaisance. The Auditor-General criticised the Department for the time taken-three years-to agree on the functions and tasks for the armed helicopters, and to agree on the precise level of capability required for each task. This delayed the selection process for the helicopter and in turn will impact on the operational capability of the frigates. The Committee, while acknowledging the need to carry out a careful evaluation process, is concerned at the time taken to arrive at a choice of helicopter, particularly in view of its impact on the frigates surveillance capability. In view of the delays so far witnessed in this project, the Committee has requested that any further delays that could impact on the embarkation of the helicopters beyond 1988 be reported to the Committee. Dealing with the Deparment of Home Affairs and Environment, the Auditor-General drew attention to a number of irregularities in the administration of the financial affairs of Norfolk Island. The Committee is precluded by the Public Accounts Act from examining matters internal to the administration of Norfolk Island. The Department of Home Affairs and Environment and the Auditor-General are seeking to clarify and resolve these inadequacies in the audit provisions of the Norfolk Island legislation. In relation to the Department of Primary Industry, the Auditor-General referred to several unsatisfactory features covering the collection of levies, taxes and charges by the Department. The Department has taken action to overcome the administrative and legislative difficulties associated with these problems. Turning to the Department of Social Security, the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service provides rehabilitation programs to persons suffering from a physical or mental disability which is considered a substantial handicap to undertaking employment or resuming an independent or semi-independent life in their own homes. The Auditor-General doubted whether sufficient information was available from past records to reliably assess the results of the training programs the Service administered. The Department has undertaken a complete review of its statistical collection procedures. The new computerised system should dramatically improve the Department's data collection and statistical analysis facilities. The Committee believes that the system should be reviewed by the Auditor-General at some later stage to evaluate the systems capabilities. The Committee recommended that the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service seek ways to exploit this new system to improve the analytical and reporting capabilities of its casework teams situated at its various centres around Australia. Further, the Committee recommended that the results and experience stemming from casework studies should be collated, analysed and made available to appropriate professional organisations in Australia. Copies of this report will not be available for general distribution until Thursday, 8 December 1983. However, copies are held by the Parliamentary Library . I commend the report to honourable members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1983 is necessary to allow the Attorney-General to consider any request from the New South Wales special commissions of inquiry for information relating to the commission, or intended commission, or a serious criminal offence which has been obtained by the lawful interception of telecommunications. Honourable members will be aware that three separate inquiries are being conducted in New South Wales under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act NSW 1983 and constituted by Mr Justice Cross. In particular, he is required to report whether there is evidence warranting the prosecution of any person for any offence arising out of the matters referred for inquiry. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, which empowers a judge to approve telephone interception by the Australian Federal Police where relevant to a narcotics investigation, places stringent restrictions on the communication of information so obtained. Where information relates, or appears to relate, to the commission or intended commission of an offence againt the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, being an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than three years, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police may communicate it to a member of the Australian Federal Police for the purposes of investigations into the offence, or to an officer of the police force of a State or Territory, as the case may be. The Act also provides that such information may be given in evidence in specified prosecutions and certain proceedings under the Customs Act 1901. The Act does not, therefore, authorise the communication of information obtained by an intercept to Mr Justice Cross, either by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or by an officer of the New South Wales Police Force to whom any such information had been communicated. The Government is of the view that, in circumstances such as these, the public interest in proper law enforcement and co-operation with the States in law enforcement matters outweigh the concerns of privacy involved in the enlargement of the circumstances in which such information can be communicated, but that proper safeguards must be observed. It therefore proposes this amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to allow the Attorney-General in certain circumstances to communicate information obtained by the lawful interception of telecommunications to the Cross Inquiry. First, there must be a request for specific information. The Attorney-General must then consider, if any relevant information exists, whether it is relevant to the purposes of the inquiry, and whether it relates, or appears to relate, to the commission or intended commission of an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period of at least three years. If these requirements are satisfied, and if the Attorney-General is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, he may then communicate the information to Mr Justice Cross. The Attorney-General may, when communicating any such information , impose conditions as to the use that may be made of it. It is envisaged that conditions would generally relate to preserving the confidentiality of the information for reasons such as the protection of current Australian Federal Police investigations. Finally, the Government thinks it proper that whenever the Attorney-General communicates information to an inquiry, he should, subject to the need to preserve the confidentiality of the information and the need to avoid prejudice to reputations, report to Parliament that he has done so, and advise Parliament of any conditions imposed by him on the use of the information . I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. [COGNATE BILLS: BOUNTY (STEEL MILL PRODUCTS) BILL 1983 BOUNTY (HIGH ALLOY STEEL PRODUCTS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Bill 1983 and the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Bill 1983, as they are associated measures? Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate on these three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.13) —The Steel Industry Authority Bill is probably one of the principal initiatives of the Government in its term of office. It has set out to save Australia's biggest company, and a company that, as I think the second reading speech states, is responsible for something like 3 per cent of the gross domestic product. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. However, I think it is necessary for me and other speakers to draw to the attention of the Government the background and the reasoning behind the need for spending such a large amount of the taxpayers' money, and a large amount it is. As we find in the explanatory memorandum, approximately $62m to $63m is to be spent in the immediate future. Of course, it has been suggested that over $70m will be provided by way of bounty assistance to the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in future years. This is a large amount of money. We must question why a business as well placed as BHP in terms of the availability of raw materials and of its establishment and development prior to the Second World War-during the Second World War it was not subject to bomb damage and all the other disruptions that occurred in all the other major industries-finds itself having to come cap in hand to the Government and the people of Australia for support. It is interesting to note that on 16 March 1982, while I was a member of the previous Government, I put the following question to the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs: I refer the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to Press statements announcing substantial reductions in the operating profit of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and in particular BHP's calculation of the negative effect that its iron and steel operations have on that profit. Is the Minister aware of the announcement that BHP has reached agreement to grant its iron and steel workers a 38-hour week? Considering that the Minister's portfolio charges him with representing the consumer as well as business, can the Minister advise the House whether he has any intention of increasing protection by either quota or tariff, which would allow BHP to pass the costs of this unilateral decision to the Australian public? It was quite clear to me, a back bencher, what such an agreement meant to the Australian people. A company had just told Australia that it was losing money on the steel industry, and it had the irresponsibility, in conjunction with its work force, privately to agree to reduce its productivity by reducing the working hours of that work force. Let us remember that at that time BHP employed approximately 30,000 people. It threw away, in a grand gesture, 60,000 working hours a week. The big Australian! Who had to pick up the tab? Eventually the Australian public, by the generosity of this Government, picked up the tab. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) might tell us that that measure is cheaper than some others, but I doubt it. The facts are that the basic and classic irresponsibility of management and unions contributed substantially to the need for this Government to throw away $ 70m of Australian money to assist an industry that refused to help itself. Those are the facts. What happened to those workers who took the advice of their leaders? Ten thousand of them received a nil-hour week out of it. That must have been of great help to them. This is the situation we will be confronted with in passing this legislation, but the Opposition recognises that if we do not pass it things could be worse. It is interesting to note that at this time the workers have had other reasons for upsetting the profitability of BHP. It is clear that even the Minister is prepared to recognise this. In his second reading speech he stated: Steel production has fallen to approximately 25 per cent below that of recent years and steel employment by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is 27 per cent below the May 1982 level, representing a loss of 10,000 jobs. The severe deterioration in the industry's competitive position resulted in BHP's steel division incurring heavy losses in both 1981-82 and 1982-83. A number of factors can be identified as contributing to the deterioration in the industry's international competitiveness. The Minister mentioned falling domestic demand, production cutbacks and rising unit production. It might be said that the company cannot be blamed for that, but the Minister gave us a couple of other reasons. He said: Labour productivity declined significantly between 1980-81 and 1981-82 . . . It dropped all right; it dropped to approximately 195 tonnes of raw steel a year per employee when Japanese competitors and other international operators, some of whom have joined the industry only in recent times and certainly did not have the advantages of BHP, were able to produce 350 tonnes per employee per year. Mr Hollis —You are blaming the work force, I am not. Mr TUCKEY —I do not care whether the honourable member wants to blame the work force or the company. I am telling him what the situation is. The best possible option the Government can give us is to spend $70m of the taxpayers' money to bale out a group of people who agreed on their self-destruction. That is what we are talking about. That was added to and contributed to at a time when the company was losing money, the workers believed and apparently the company believed-I am sharing the blame-that they could operate two hours a week per man less although they could not produce even half of the amount of steel other companies were producing and often, what is more, with labour that cost less. The situation is, quite clearly, that the company could not afford it and Australia could not afford it, but we are stuck with it. Let us have a look at some of the other situations that affected BHP at that time when it started losing money. Strikes cost BHP significant production. Its figures show that 5.2 per cent was lost in 1979; 8.4 per cent in 1980; 6.81 per cent in 1981; and 7.7 per cent in the first half of 1982. We know what that was for-so the work force, the union leaders, could achieve this wonderful asset of having two hours a week off. What a great asset that is! Even the workers found out that that cost them money because leisure is expensive. Whereas when they were at work it cost them nothing, they had to turn around and spend money to entertain themselves in their spare time. That was the contribution made for these people. That is what they were doing to an industry. What was the price for doing that? Ten thousand people lost their jobs. That was the price delivered by those kind fellows who said: 'Stick with us comrades, we will do you a great favour; we will save you two hours of work a week'. Ten thousand of them were saved 38 hours a week. That was the situation. We have to discover what sorts of efforts were made by the comrades of these steel workers who were in such dire trouble and whose employer was in such dire trouble. What do we discover? We discover that BHP, which has iron ore and coal on its doorstep, certainly within this continent, has the misfortune of suffering other government policy. I am not saying that this is necessarily only the policy of this Hawke Labor Government because I do not think it is. It is a policy by which we protect Australian shipping, for some obscure reason. If it is to save us in a war I doubt sincerely that the fellows on those ships would be much help to us. We have a shipping policy that says that BHP must cart in Australian shipping all that iron ore and coal that it requires to come by sea. What did the iron ore and steel industry inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission of 25 July 1980 tell us about that? It said: Assistance to coastal shipping also imposes additional costs on BHP. These costs were estimated by the Commission at between $20 million to $25 million in 1977-78. That is probably something like $40m today. That is what is imposed by the brother seamen's union and the other maritime unions on BHP and the work force. If honourable members think I have just thought that up I take them back to a question I asked of the then Prime Minister on 16 September 1982. I said: I refer the Prime Minister to his meeting with steel industry unions to discuss the result of the Government's decision to protect Australian steel consumers from the second most expensive steel manufacturer in the world. If honourable members do not know who that is, it is BHP. I went on to ask: Is the report in the last issue of the Bulletin correct when it says that Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd suffers a direct negative effect of $25m due to its obligations under the Navigation Act to employ Australian owned and crewed shipping? I might add that the first time Hansard wrote that it spelt crewed 'crude'. Sometimes I regret Hansard changing it, but it is 'crewed shipping'. The question continued: As such an amount could be measured as equivalent to 1,250 jobs on land, does the Prime Minister propose any moves to give BHP and its workers protection also from this obviously inefficient and featherbedded sector of Australian industry? Mr Hollis —You would have cheap Asian labour, wouldn't you? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Macarthur will cease interjecting. Mr TUCKEY —I did not talk about cheap Asian labour. I am just telling the honourable member what it costs. I think he has a representative area in his electorate. It cost 1,500 jobs in Newcastle because a couple of hundred blokes got a job on a ship. They are the rules and if the honourable member believes that is a fair balance he should keep it up. Mr Hollis —Get your facts right. Mr TUCKEY —The facts are that BHP goes down the drain for $30m or $40m a year because of an obligation to keep a few hundred seamen in a job and those seamen want a job for what is above and beyond a reasonable return. We all know about that. I lived in a fishing town for years. Where were all those seamen when they wanted their well-earned rest? They were working on prawn trawlers and double dipping. We know what honourable members opposite think about double dipping, do we not? They love that double dipping. Every blooming seaman is double dipping. They do not stay at home when they get their six or seven months off. But look at what they are doing to the fellow workers in the steel industry. I do not know whether the Government should be sympathetic to them because, as I have already proved, they have set out on a determined course of self-destruction, ably abetted by their employer, BHP, which seems to be more interested in putting advertisements on the radio and television telling Australia what a good thing it is rather than getting its industry to be efficient. Of course, the Minister has admitted to all this. That is no secret. He has just put it in nice plain words. He has not given the details behind it. He has told us that labour productivity has declined. He also said: Other factors contributing to the industry's loss of competitiveness included a marked decline in labour productivity, sharply increased labour costs and problems with over-manning industry. It is interesting to note, to get back to the maritime industries for a moment, what BHP has to do to get anything like the economies of scale it needs. The report on BHP from the IAC states: Through its cost increasing effect, assistance elsewhere in the economy raises BHP's costs of production-- Here, of course, we are talking about hidden assistance to the shipping industry and putting 100 per cent quotas on the shipping industry- and hence restricts its ability to export profitably. In another place the report states: It appears that the Australian industry producing basic iron and steel could expand more significantly but only by much greater reliance upon export markets. There is no secret about that. No one needs to be told that the Australian internal market is small. There is no doubt about that. We all know that economy of scale is the rule for steel production; that big is beautiful. But what do we do in our export markets? Firstly, we featherbed and we inflate, as the Minister has told us, the cost of production internally. By protecting an associated industry we upset the economics entirely and further destroy, as the IAC has told us, the chances of this industry being able to export. Then we get a step further. This has been brought to my attention in another arena. When we want some ships to cart that product away from Australia what price do we pay? If BHP were able, as for instance Hardie's asbestos fiberlite pipes in Western Australia are, to meet the international f.o.b. price-it knows that because it is competing with its subsidiaries manufacturing with that so-called cheap Asian labour the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) is so worried about-it could beat its own subsidiaries. But why did BHP lose the market? When it called tenders to have its product carted to the consumer and the shipping companies tendered they noticed an absence in their quotations of all the bottom line operators, the cheapest shipping companies. They will go to their Asian subsidiary. Of course, the c.i.f. cost then works out to a situation where the Asian subsidiary, owned by Hardie's fiberlite, wins the contract. In fact, when all this information was put to me Hardie's in Perth was working a three-day week. These companies say to the shipping companies: 'For goodness sake, in addition to some slight savings in travelling the extra distance, come to Fremantle or Newcastle and pick up these goods at the same rate per kilometre and we can win the tender for Australia'. What do the shipping companies say? They say: 'Not likely. We do not want to take the risk of going to that country and having our ships tied up and treated to all sorts of investigations and inspections by people who are not qualified to do it'. I can cite honourable members a recent example of a member of the Merchant Service Guild, a captain, who said that a ship was safe. But no, a mob of wharfies had to tell him that it was not. Mr Hollis —That shows how little they understand. Mr TUCKEY —Are you telling me that a ship's captain, a member of the Merchant Service Guild, knows less about ship safety than a wharfie? You can put that in writing any time and I will run it round at your next election campaign to describe to your constituents how dumb you are. Do not worry about it. I have no worries. An extra 9 per cent of people in my electorate recognise my ability. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member for O'Connor to address the Chair and to ignore the interjections. Mr TUCKEY —I will. These people are killing off jobs on the land. These shipping companies say 'We will not come', and they do not come. One of them said: 'I would visit Australia only with a brand new ship on its maiden voyage. I would never come back again'. The reason such companies are so cheap and competitive in international markets is that they do not take the risk of coming to Australia. Who is paying for that? It is the 10,000 or 20,000 unemployed people in the Newcastle and Wollongong areas. The second reading speech indicates that the workers in the steel industry have agreed with the Government to raise productivity and to do all these good things. We have had to buy that agreement off them. My constitutents have had to pay dearly for this agreement to get people to act in their own interests. Mr Hollis —What about the subsidies we give the farmers? Mr TUCKEY —I invite the honourable member to write them off, to add the negatives to the other side and tell me the result. Any time he wants to ask the Industries Assistance Commission, it will tell him that there are none. The honourable member tells me that the farmers get subsidies. The farmers get a subsidy of $12 a tonne on superphosphate. The rock phosphate carted into Australia is carted on that wonderful assistance to Australia which recently got $50m of taxpayers' money-the Australian National Line. The differential on that is $12 a tonne. We may as well just pay the money to the Australian National Line, because the farmers do not get it. They get a subsidy of $12 a tonne which is direct compensation for the inefficiences of the shipping industry. Let us forget the farmers for a minute. I am trying to tell the honourable member why he and his cronies have contributed to 20,000 people being out of work in the steel industry. He suggests that $70m of Australian taxpayers' money will solve the problem. I believe that it will not. This legislation will provide a $71.6m per annum subsidy on the production and domestic sale of certain steel products. What does that mean to us? It means that Australians in the downstream industries will be protected from the other option that was available to the Government. I congratulate members of the Government on being prepared at least to take the bounty option. It must have made their hands shake, considering the amount of money they are spending in so many other ways. It is the only tariff decision the Government has taken and it was only the magnitude of it which caused it not to take the revenue option. The farming industry is one of four industries in Australia which produce an initial dollar. They are the three Fs-farming, fishing and forestry-and the mining industry. They are all primary industries. Those people are doing their best. While the honourable member talks about his problems, on Monday 350 farmers met with me in a little town called Mukinbudin. They have no income this year. When they get income no one will index the price of wheat for them. They will take the price that overseas buyers provide. What is more, they are stuck with this lousy shipping system. Every time someone comes in to load a ship, the wharfies and others at Kwinana try to screw an extra bit out of them, having already benefited from the indexation to which they are entitled. After the meeting one of the farmers rang me and said: 'Wilson, all our troubles would be over if you could just get the price of wheat indexed like wages are indexed'. What should I tell him? Should I tell him that he is a mug? Fortunately he, like me, is probably reasonably intelligent and can prove it, as I had to on one occasion in this place. We can worry about that in due course. Let us look at what the Government makes out of tariffs. This year, as I read the Budget Papers, $1.773 billion is the positive revenue component of protection. Although it is not now his portfolio, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) every now and again correctly advises the work force what protection of anything costs it. It costs not only jobs but also money. I have forgotten what a seaman costs us to employ, but I understand that we could send him to the Riviera with about $20,000 a year in cash and use somebody else's shipping and the country would be better off; it would be cheaper. Mr Hollis —That is the sort of rubbish you peddle. Mr TUCKEY —I am not peddling it. I am telling the honourable member, and again he will not take my advice. I advised honourable gentlemen opposite of the grave difficulty they had with their pin-striped socialist, the man who was bringing down their high reputations by avoiding and evading tax while they were sitting around. They backed him with their votes after I told them that they should not do so. That was good advice too. I will concede that most of them would not stoop to that type of thing and, furthermore, could not afford the expensive lawyers and accountants that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and his family can afford. I told them that, but they stuck behind him. They have kept him in the Ministry and, of course, they will take the criticism for that. With one rotten apple in the barrel they know what will happen to the rest of them. That is the way the public will see it. I am trying to tell honourable gentlemen opposite what they are doing and why they are not saving their own people. They are not representing them. In the talk about the economy we hear daily in this place about the faults of the previous Government. It appears to me that no matter what the subject is-it can be tariffs, bounty protection or anything we like-if the Government is doing something wrong, as we heard restated by a Minister today, it is only because we used to do it wrong when we were in government. Has anybody stopped to think-I charge someone to deny this-that the economic circumstances of a nation cannot be manipulated overnight? It is certainly reasonable to say that any macroeconomic decision of a government would take from six to nine months to filter through. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), as if he were a perfect rain maker-the rain has had no significant effect-says that because of his policies certain things are happening and the economy is on the way up. The economy will measure this Government's performance next year. That is when we will find out what its efforts have done. The economy is picking up because the previous Government did two things. Firstly, it imposed a wage pause. Secondly, it had a $4 billion deficit, which I was not all that thrilled about but which this Government has doubled. The economy is floating along on those two situations at the moment. Nothing this Government has done has had significance-except for one thing; that is, that the business community is greatly relieved that this Government is only about half as bad as it thought it would be; therefore, there is still a bit of confidence out in the business community. I think the business community probably approves of this Government propping up BHP. As I have said, we approve of this Government propping up BHP because the situation is so bad that there is no other solution. The only thing that the Government could have done which would have been worse would have been to introduce quotas or tariffs, or both. But all in all what has this Government done? We know all about this confidence we have been told about. When I pick up yesterday's Australian Financial Review I see the headlines. This is this great confidence we are being told about. The only reason there is confidence is that it has rained and $2 billion or $3 billion is coming from the agricultural sector. The Government has turned around and, in one of its other tariff decisions, has imposed a $14m burden on that sector to protect an industry to which it could have given a bounty at a cost of $2m. What is the headline in the Australian Financial Review? It reads: ' Manufacturing sector hit by funds outflow'. We have all the hot money in the world flowing into Australia to fill the Government loan, but where is the money that will generate more money going? It is going out. The article in the Australian Financial Review states: Figures released by the Bureau of Statistics show foreign investment fell in the latest quarter by 43 per cent, compared with a 12 per cent fall in the June quarter. Maybe this is the instant response to the new Government. The Government certainly should not tell me that this is all due to today's economic activity. The Government should never demonstrate that it is so silly that it believes that in macroeconomic terms the few actions it has taken so far can do this sort of thing. The article continues: The manufacturing sector suffered a sizable net outflow of foreign capital of $ 281m in the September quarter, compared with a net inflow of $310m in the June quarter. This was the first net outflow from the manufacturing sector since 1979. There we are. That is the picture. We are propping up our steel industry, the one industry that should be able to stand on its own feet. Nevertheless, let us hope that it will get the industry back to something worthwhile. This will not happen unless its workers and the associated workers recognise their responsibility also, and I stress the word 'also'. I do not hold a brief for the managers and the directors of BHP. I think they are equally open to criticism for what they let happen to the steel industry. I sincerely hope that the Government's plan will work. I am not in this chamber to suggest for a moment that I wish it would not work. I would rather see this Government stay in office for a longer period and the plan work. I recognise the importance of BHP. But it is no good saying that this is the way Australia will go and then going on to say that we can keep propping people up so that they can enjoy more leisure. Unless we are prepared to encourage people to do a day's work and to recognise that they have as much responsibility as the management has to keep a company viable things will go down the drain quite badly. This particular step will not help us. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(8.44) —I welcome this opportunity to make a contribution to this cognate debate. We are debating the Steel Industry Authority Bill, the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Bill and the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Bill. I was very interested in what the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) said. One thing came across to me very clearly. I do not know what sort of a farmer, money manager or investor he is, but he certainly does not understand the steel industry and he most certainly does not understand the trade union movement. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know how closely you are associated with this matter as we share adjoining electorates. I know of your great interest in the steel industry and in its workers. But the honourable member for O'Connor came into this chamber and, on the one topic on which I thought we could have had a bipartisan approach, we heard the usual old rhetoric. The honourable member for O'Connor might as well leave the chamber as he is going to get quite a serve. Mr O'Neil —Leave the chamber. Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member should leave the chamber. That is his way. He has his say and then he runs out. One would have thought that he could have adopted a bipartisan approach to this matter, but no. He stood up and made all sorts of comments about the unions-(Quorum formed) I hope that honourable members opposite have had their fun and games and we can now get down to some serious business. It is typical of members of the Liberal Party of Australia in this House to do that sort of thing and call for a quorum. I could have shared in some of the comments the honourable member for O'Connor made, as I have some reservations about the management of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I have been very public in my criticisms of the management of BHP. I want to see some of the fat cats there removed and shaken up. I have said many times that there should have been a shake-up of the management of BHP. I admit that the honourable member for O'Connor made that comment during the last 15 seconds of his speech, after a tirade of half an hour in which he abused the trade union movement, which is about his level of debate. Honourable members should make no mistake. Behind the formal titles of these Bills we are talking about the salvation of the Australian steel industry and the great steel centres , those areas of Newcastle, Whyalla and Port Kembla that have contributed so magnificantly to the development of this great country, these great working class areas that our conservative opponents would have thrown on the scrapheap. My remarks wil be directed mainly to the Steel Industry Authority Bill. On election our Government pledged itself to maintain a viable steel industry and to take measures to assist the seriously depressed regions of the Illawarra, the Hunter and Whyalla. Under the conservatives the steel industry was in a state of chaos. With massive redundancies and declining markets the future of the steel industry was in jeopardy. In part, the crisis in the steel industry was caused by the disastrous deflationary policies of the Fraser Government. The abrogation of responsibility for economic policy under Fraser created the conditions for the dismantling of the Australian manufacturing sector and, as a result, inputs from the steel industry dropped dramatically. In addition, the thrust of policy for the steel industry was to write an open cheque for BHP, through depreciation allowances and investment allowances, to invest in technologies that did away with labour. It is fair to say that under the Conservatives government did not have unduly to concern itself with economic policy, as this was done for it in the boardrooms of the large corporations. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) was given the extremely difficult and unenvious task of stabilising the steel industry and establishing a framework for the future development of the industry. In the time available, the Minister did a very commendable job. Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order. Is it appropriate for members to wear badges or slogans in the House? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —There are some restrictions about that matter, but nothing appears to offend my eye at the moment in that respect. Mr HOLLIS —The Australian people will be indebted to him for the stabilisation of the industry brought about by the introduction of the steel industry plan. Of course, the Minister knows that if each of the parties-that is, the unions, the Government and management-had separately prepared the plan it would have been different, but the plan is seen by the Government, the industry and the union movement as being essential to reverse the decline in the industry's fortunes and represents a new approach to industry policy in Australia. The plan involves a significant investment of public funds in the steel industry. For the first time, assistance to the steel industry is clearly visible and not hidden behind capital investment subsidies. The Government has also provided a mechanism to review assistance if BHP's market share is threatened by cheap imports. This provides a framework for the steel industry to develop without giving carte blanche to the private sector. With the establishment of a Steel Industry Authority, the Australian Government and people will become more informed about our major manufacturing industry and will be in a better position to avoid the type of situation that has arisen in the past couple of years, with such tragic consequences for miners and steel workers, their families and the steel regions. In return for assistance, BHP has agreed to maintain its integrated steel plants at Newcastle, Port Kembla and Whyalla, invest in modernising the steel industry, and provide some security for its work force. I say 'some security' with regret, following the company's announcement of the retrenchment of 44 electricians and 16 bricklayers and the proposed putting off of 300 of this year's 340 apprentices at Port Kembla after the steel industry plan was outlined. There is also no commitment by the steel companies to provide protection of jobs for injured workers on light duties. One of the costs of the drive for higher productivity is that past victims of that drive are dispensed with. This contradicts the International Labour Organisation 's commitment to the rehabilitation of injured workers and is a matter I will be referring to the Steel Industry Authority for consideration. Following the announcement of the steel industry plan, it is interesting to note that BHP's steel division is back in the black, though the steel regions are still very much in the red. Recovery of the steel industry means nothing if we cannot provide a future for the thousands of people out of work as a result of the recession and BHP's corporate strategies. Given the amount of public assistance to the steel industry, it is absolutely essential to have an independent authority to monitor the industry and to develop a data base to assess the real situation in the industry. In the past few years, government and the public have been bombarded with claims about low productivity, high wage rates, and imports being the causes of the crisis, without having the information to determine properly the accuracy of the claims. During the steel industry crisis BHP used the threat of abandonment of the steel industry as a means to procure the requested assistance. According to the Industries Assistance Commission, the company stated: . . . due to the magnitude of the investment required and the time taken to plan , construct and achieve optimum production levels on new steel plant, an assurance of ongoing support would be required before funds could be committed to the envisaged development plan. It added that it regarded the assistance requested as the mimimum required if the industry were to survive and develop and said that, unless the requested assistance was forthcoming, the company's steel division could be moribund. Given the enormous fixed investment by BHP in the steel industry, it is unlikely that complete cessation was considered an option, even if further assistance were not forthcoming. This view has been confirmed by Mr Peter Laver, the General Manger of BHP's steel division, who recently estimated the cost of closing down Newcastle and Whyalla at $1,000m, hardly an option for the company. Although steel is not a highly profitable industry, I doubt that it is as unprofitable as the industry claims. Most of the losses in BHP's steel division in the last financial year can be attributed to two factors that the honourable member for O'Connor did not mention. Firstly, massive amounts were paid out to reduce the size of the work force. These are non-recurring costs. Secondly, investment was at record levels in the industry, and this capital expenditure was being offset against profit. It appears that BHP was using the threat of cessation of the steel industry as a means of socialising the costs of investment and the minimisation of private risk in the modernisation of the industry. Those in the steel industry work force were the victims of this strategy. Certainly this is a matter that should be taken up with the Steel Industry Authority. The key component of the steel industry plan is labour productivity. I believe the Authority should investigate this concept very closely. Every report on the steel industry in the past few years has conceded the inappropriateness of comparing productivity in different countries because of the different basis of management. We heard the honourable member for O'Connor talk about productivity and compare it. Let us compare productivity. In Japan, much of the work for the steel industry is done by outside contractors. This is not included in their productivity figures. In Australia, management is included in the measurement of productivity. If management were excluded, surely our productivity performance could be improved. Despite these difficulties and the impossibility of comparing different steel products, comparisons are still made between our poor performance and the performance of overseas steel producers. Although there is scope to improve labour productivity, it is by no means clear why the onus for improving the performance of the steel industry should fall on the company's diminishing work force. The Authority will be able to address questions such as the competence of management and industrial strategies to develop a more sophisticated manufacturing sector, creating new employment opportunities and pricing and investment policies in the steel industry to assist in revitalising manufacturing. Certainly, the evidence on labour productivity is inconclusive. It should be noted that at the same time as BHP was preparing submissions to the Government on low productivity, it was telling its shareholders of the improvements in productivity at its largest Port Kembla plants. The improvement in labour productivity at the Port Kembla steel works in the late 1970s has been demonstrated by a study prepared at the University of Wollongong. It is clear that we need a Steel Industry Authority to provide some public accountability for the large public investment in the steel industry. In addition to improving the economic performance of the steel industry, the Authority should also investigate ways the industry can improve the work place environment by investing in plant and equipment that minimises health and safety hazards and improves the physical environment in the steel regions. As well as safety mechanisms for imports, we should develop a health and safety program to provide a protective mechanism for workers. Too much emphasis on boosting productivity alone may lead to increased fatalities and accidents in the steel industry. The year 1978-a peak year for productivity in the 1970s-had the greatest number of fatalities of the 1970s. Australian standards in minimising coke oven emissions lag well behind American and European standards. It would be in the interests of steel workers and the industry to close the No. 3 battery of coke ovens at Port Kembla and construct No. 7A. We should be looking at ways of creating new jobs through technologies that improve health and safety. At present, the steel industry is introducing technologies for steel production appropriate to the 1990s, but with the working conditions of the 1930s. There are many dangerous chemicals and substances in the steel industry. Provision should be made for BHP to provide a chemical registry. This information should be forwarded to the Authority and monitored by the relevant health authorities. The Authority should also encourage the steel industry to improve the physical environment in the steel regions. In response to the crisis in the steel regions , the Federal Government has invested millions of dollars to improve the natural environment in order to increase employment opportunities. In the Illawarra, Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd is proposing to establish a coal wash disposal and slag dump on beautiful rural and rainforest areas in proximity to residential areas in West Dapto which, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, is in my electorate. By permanently degrading the region's unique natural environment, this proposal will detract from the region's potential to improve its image. It could be argued that this slag dump is the only thing that BHP has ever given back to my region. It is certainly an unwanted gift. To conclude, this Government has gone further than any other Australian Government to provide a future for the steel industry and to assess its development accurately. The challenge will be to ensure that the benefits of the revitalised steel industry are shared by the work force, the steel regions and the Australian people. It is essential that the Government's steel plan works and I am convinced that, given good will on all sides, it will work. Indeed, it must work, because if it does not Australia will not have a steel industry. I commend these Bills to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.01) —I wholeheartedly support the Steel Industry Authority Bill, the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Bill and the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Bill, and I commend the Government for having brought them into this Parliament. I had the honour from 1980-83 to serve as Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I say from the outset that there is much in what the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) said with which I entirely agree. I believe the legislation which has been brought into this Parliament by the Government is firmly in the interests of Australia and the Australian steel industry. I say this with some feeling. I guess my views in relation to protection are more pronounced than are those of perhaps many others in my Party. I am proud to be a member of a party which provides its members with an opportunity to express their views, ranging in economic terms from the wet to the dry. I have no hesitation in saying that I am quite happy to accept the appellation of a wet; I am a protectionist. I have even been described as so wet as to be a submarine. I find that sobriquet a compliment rather than an insult. The other reason why I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate- the Minister's advisers who are present in the House will recall the matter on which I am about to comment-is that last year as a very junior Minister I found myself embroiled in the then Government's deliberations on the future of the Australian steel industry. To a large extent the honourable member for Farrer ( Mr Fife) and I had to carry the basis of the industry Cabinet submission because the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Sir Philip Lynch, was unfortunately ill and was away from duty for several weeks. It was during that period that I had the opportunity to meet and talk with representatives of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I say two things about that company here and now. I do not often give a commercial but in my opinion BHP is really the Big Australian. I believe Sir James McNeill to be a very great Australian, I believe that Brian Loton is a very great Australian and I believe that Mr Balderstone will make an excellent Chairman of BHP when he assumes that position next year. Whether we like it or not, Australia has no future if it does not have its own indigenous national steel industry. Whether we like it or not, BHP is that industry. I say, to the surprise no doubt of some of my friends on the other side of the chamber, that I do not really believe that the Hawke socialist Government wishes to nationalise the steel industry. Mr John Brown —You are right. Mr HODGMAN —I think, as the Minister says, I am right on that point. But I have to say-I would be less than honest if I did not do so-that I think 11 August was a very important day in the history of Australia. I think the five-year plan which will commence on 1 January 1984 is probably one of the most vital plans for the future of the Australian economy and the Australian nation. It is historic because it is only the third industry plan approved by an Australian Government. The first such plan, which was approved in August 1980, was for the textile, clothing and footwear industries. That plan, I am pleasantly surprised to note, has been carried forward by the Hawke socialist Government. The second plan to have been carried forward by the Hawke socialist Government is that in relation to the passenger motor vehicle industry. The third plan is the one introduced by this Government which will commence on 1 January 1984 with the five-year plan in respect of the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Bill 1983 and the Bounty (High Alloy Products) Bill 1983. That plan will run to 1 January 1989. In introducing the Steel Industry Authority Bill 1983 the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) said-I think it was the fundamental premise of his entire speech: This industry-- that is, the steel industry- is strategically and economically important to the Australian economy. I wish to take those words a little further. I make the fundamental point that the Australian economy has no future at all unless we produce our own steel. Anybody who has studied the figures over the last five years has to recognise and accept the fact that the importation of steel from Japan and Korea has had a most significant impact on the operation of BHP and on Australia's capacity to be self-reliant in steel production. I believe that on both sids of the chamber there would be a community of thought and agreement that this country could not defend itself without its own steel industry and without a manufacturing base based on that industry. Those who have been prone in recent times-including some of my colleages, some of whom are very senior colleagues-to criticise BHP have done so in the broad but have never come up with the specifics. All through last year I heard people saying that the management of BHP was a fault and that that constituted a reason for being less sympathetic on the question of assistance than would otherwise have been the case. I reject that proposition completely. I am sick and tired of people in government and in the bureaucracy-I exclude the Minister's advisers who are present tonight because they are not the sort of bureaucrats about whom I am talking-looking for a scapegoat and making a broad-brush statement. I think the honourable member for Macarthur came very close to making the same point. The comment was made that the administration, the management of BHP, today was not as good as it had been in years past. I saw something happen to Sir James McNeill and Mr Loton last year-I cannot say where or when-which I will never forget. My humble opinion, rightly or wrongly, is that when an industry is vital to the future of this country and when Australia has no future without it, problems in the relations between government and management and personality clashes or criticisms must be subjugated in the national interest. The national interest is that the BHP operation is part and parcel of the future of this country. I do not merely support the Minister; I want him to know that I believe his Government has made the correct decisions. I will encourage the Government-this will horrify some of my dry colleagues in the Opposition coalition parties-to go further if it considers the circumstances so warrant it. I believe that if the bounty provisions which come in for the five year program on 1 January 1984 are not effective in ensuring that BHP's operations will continue and if this Government then believes that it should act in respect of quotas, if it is of any assistance to the Government there is at least one, and probably more, on this side of the House who would support it. I do not say that lightly because it cuts across my basic and broad philosophy to advocate quotas but if it comes to a choice between quotas and the future of an industry which is vital to this country I will support quotas. If it comes to be a choice between quotas on the one hand and further retrenchments in an industry which has lost 10,000 employees in the last 18 months on the other, I will bite the bullet and say that the choice must be quotas. I note with great pleasure the presence in the chamber tonight of the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keeffe). He follows these matters perhaps better than any other member of the Parliament. He follows the trade negotiations between Australia and Japan and Australia and Korea extremely closely. Mr Goodluck —What about us? Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Franklin and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) likewise. Even this week there was a suggestion-I am sure my honourable friend, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce , will follow the point I am making-that Korea might have some cause for complaint about the way in which the Australian Government supports the Australian indigenous steel industry and BHP. Let me put it on the record here and now that if Korea has any ground for complaint Japan has twice as many grounds for complaint. I am sick and tired of the blackmail that goes on. Without any disrespect to our coalition colleagues in Opposition in the National Party, I would be inclined to say: 'Unless you recognise the essential provisions which are vital for the existence of BHP we might not be prepared to deal with you in other commodities. We might be prepared to lay down the gauntlet in respect of beef or wool.' Mr Deputy Speaker, with your extensive ministerial experience you will know that in international trade it is often the one who gets the first bite of the cherry who comes out victorious at the end. To be quite frank, and with all due respect to our Korean friends, I think the Korean steel industry, which is, in fact, the Korean Government, has taken Australia to the cleaners. That is my honest and frank opinion. I will not get many Brownie points from a few of my colleagues when they read my speech in Hansard tomorrow. But what is the point of being in this place, particularly in opposition, if one does not put on the record one's views. I have not broken any rules by saying what took place in that room in the corner of this building and I will not do so. But I had the horrible feeling last year that there were forces at work who said that BHP must be rapped over the knuckles, it must be punished and it must suffer a little. Those forces said that 10,000 jobs were neither here nor there. I think that 10,000 jobs are important. Whether they are the jobs of Liberal voters, Labor Party voters, National Party voters, voters for the Australian Democrats or whatever is not the point. Every job lost in Australia is so much harder to recover. I find myself in an interesting situation. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who is the shadow Minister for Finance, is detained tonight and cannot take part in the debate. He will probably go into convulsions tomorrow when he sees what I have said, but I warned him. If my view is slightly to the wetter side of the official party position I take pride in being a member of a party which gives me the opportunity to say so. I want to make a couple of closing comments in relation to the Steel Industry Authority. I do not know whether Hansard picked it up-I have not had the chance to check-but I made an interjection when the Steel Industry Authority Bill was first introduced into the Parliament that it was a step towards nationalisation of the Australian steel industry. That comment was facetious. As I indicated earlier, I do not think the Government intends, nor would it want, if it has any sense, to nationalise the Australian steel industry. But I think it is important that government support for the Australian steel industry be seen in at least some sections of the Parliament to be bipartisan. Mr Goodluck —Michael, cut it out a bit. Mr HODGMAN —I say to the honourable member for Franklin that I feel strongly on this matter. Without in any way breaching any of the traditional conditions or conventions relating to those who have served in government-I can say it at no higher level than this-I wish we could have done more for the steel industry last year. Some day in the future, probably in the year 2010, the Cabinet papers will be made public. I cannot speculate on what is in those documents but it may well be that four or five options were available to government. It may well be that departments and some of the free traders in the ranks of our government were arguing for lower options. It may well be that there were one or two little stars of protection twinkling in that celestial heaven in the Cabinet room. It may be there were one or two who felt that BHP really was the big Australian, and was worth fighting for. Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Can I get my colleague a glass of water? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -The honourable member knows that the Christmas messages come tomorrow. Mr HODGMAN —I would like to say, across party lines, well done to the Hawke Government. I believe that BHP deserves strong support. I believe the Australian steel industry is vital and fundamental to the future of Australia. The sooner we take politics out of the steel industry the better. Perhaps the Authority in many ways will be able to do this. The Authority will cost a pittance. It must be one of the cheapest statutory authorities ever in the history of any Western democracy. It will cost $188,000 in 1983-84 and a mere $293,000 in the two succeeding years. This industry is worth $5 billion per annum to the economy of this country. It represents 3.4 per cent of our gross domestic product. To its very great credit it went into profit in the first quarter of 1983-84. I hope that that profit situation continues; I believe in BHP; I believe in our steel industry and I believe in our nation. I believe in our manufacturing base. The Minister believes in that and, to his credit, he has been able to bring it to the forefront of government thinking. We have no future in Australia unless we can manufacture the things Australians want. I do not want to see Australia mendicant. I do not want to see Australia a net importer. I do not want to see Australia held to ransom by governments and private interests in other countries which have no loyalty to this country and whose only loyalty is to the almighty dollar. Last but not least, I want to see Australia in a position to be able to defend itself. Without a steel industry it cannot even contemplate defending itself. To Sir James McNeill, to BHP and to the Hawke socialist Government I offer my congratulations and strong support on these Bills. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(9.19) —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Steel Industry Authority Bill and the Bills being debated cognately. I say from the outset that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has just made the greatest speech I have ever heard from him. Members on this side of the House completely concur with that speech. It was a wonderful speech. There is no doubt that like old wine some people mature with age. It would not surprise me to see the honourable member for Denison move to this side of the House. Obviously, as it is nearing Christmas, he is becoming more of a Christian and understanding what life is all about. He understands the working class. His speech was absolutely superb. I must commend the honourable member for Denison. Never in my life would I have thought that I would support him. At one stage the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) said to me: 'Not a bad bloke, that Michael Hodgman'. By hell, he was dead right. I have to concur with him. Before the honourable member for Denison gave his eloquent, articulate and constructive speech, we had to listen to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) who really spoke on behalf of the Liberal-National Party Opposition. He demonstrated the opposition which we in the Australian Labor Party had in framing this positive Bill. I think that from the outset I should give some indication of why this Bill was necessary and the reasons why we framed it. The industry is a major user of Australian raw materials and a significant employer of labour in a number of regional centres. Any substantial reduction in the size of the industry would therefore have had very serious consequences for the utilisation of these resources. For instance, the difficulties recently encountered by the industry have led to substantial reductions in employment in regional centres which already have much higher unemployment ratios than the national average. It is extremely unlikely that steel industry labour and raw materials, once made redundant, can be redeployed effectively in the short term. Until very recently the industry was an efficient user of resources, with available assistance levels well below those afforded most other Australian manufacturing industries. Thus it should be possible to resolve the industry's current difficulties through co-operation between the industry and the Government. It appears increasingly unlikely, however, that the free-market environment can provide a satisfactory solution. Of course, the iron and steel industry requires very substantial periodic outlays for maintenance-for example, blast furnace relines-which if not undertaken would result in mandatory plant closures. These items of plant cannot be recommissioned without incurring substantial costs. Thus, any decision not to provide additional assistance is likely to be largely irreversable. Therefore, in formulating the steel industry plan, the Government had as its objective the creation of a long term viable steel industry providing job security for its employees and of inputs to a wide range of metal and engineering industries at internationally competitive prices. To regain its internationally competitive position, the industry would have to reduce its relative production costs significantly. The Government on its own could not ensure the necessary cost reductions. All involved parties including the industry, the unions and relevant State governments have a role to play in achieving these reductions. The Government believes that the steel industry plan is unique in requiring commitments from each of these parties. It would be up to all parties to meet these individual commitments and to work together if the plan were to be successful, leading to a viable internationally competitive Australian steel industry. Let me say with some enthusiasm that in deciding upon its contribution to the plan, the Government had the benefit of the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the iron and steel industry and the report of the Steel Industry Advisory Council. Some of the significant points which are relevant to the plan are as follows: Firstly, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has undertaken to continue the operation of the three integrated steel plants and to provide job security for the period of the plan, subject to its successful implementation. Secondly, the unions and BHP have also agreed that the initial productivity target would be to re-establish a productivity level of 250 tonnes per employee per annum in the major steel works. Initial levels of productivity at other steel industry centres would be established consistent with their best performance in the past. Thirdly, the steel industry plan is to commence on 1 January 1984 and will run for a period of five years. There will be a review of the plan at the end of the fourth year, after which the Government will decide whether the plan should be extended, and if so, under what conditions. I think these three points are very relevant. The fourth point, which is very significant, particularly to my electorate, is that a $100m package deal of employment and training initiatives will be announced by the Federal Government to assist restructuring in the major steel regions of Australia. I refer to the Hunter and Illawarra regions of New South Wales, and Whyalla in South Australia. This is part of the Federal Government's comprehensive plan for revitalising the Australian steel industry and the related regional economies, and it is most welcome. In the case of Whyalla in particular, I hope the money will be used in long term job creation such as tourism, which we all realise has a tremendous multiplier effect on jobs, or that the money will be used in providing some assistance to building the infrastructure for a petrochemical plant. At the moment the Asahi company of Japan is considering whether to build a petrochemical plant at Stoney Point, just out of Whyalla, or at Port Adelaide. It would be of great benefit and a boost to Whyalla if the plant were to be located at Stoney Point, because apart from the number of jobs which would be created during the construction of the plant, after its establishment 450 jobs would be available. This would be a tremendous boost for Whyalla in particular. Mr Bilney —Best thing since Lloyd O'Neil. Mr O'NEIL —My friend the honourable member for Kingston is quite correct. The Steel Industry Authority will be monitoring an industry rescue operation which has, without the slightest doubt, saved the city of Whyalla in my electorate from extinction, as well as averting disasters of varying degrees in the New South Wales steel centres, as was pointed out by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis). There are about 31,000 people in Whyalla and more than 60 per cent of them are employed directly in the steel industry. The great majority of the others depend on that industry for their employment in that locality. Before the last Federal election, BHP made no secret of its intention to close down the steel industry if it could not get Federal Government assistance in protection from cheap imports and in as many other ways as possible. We all realise that if the Fraser Government had been re -elected, the steel industry centres would have certainly gone. The people of Australia realised that and would not have a bar of the ratbags on the other side of the House. Mr Howard —Oh, nonsense. Do not make provocative statements at this hour of the night. Mr O'NEIL —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has just come into the House. I have made a false statement. I said: 'The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has just come into the House'. If he has his way, he will soon be Leader of the Opposition. I say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock): 'Watch out, Andrew'. The Labor Party guaranteed that in government it would maintain a viable and efficient steel industry, and it undertook to consult with BHP to work out the best method of doing just that. Many factors had a bearing on the final shape that this plan took, not the least of these was the desperate financial situation that the Government inherited from its predecessors. I hope the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is listening to that statement. BHP would have committed up to $2.8 billion to reconstruction over 10 years, but the reciprocal contribution required of the nation would have been too great for the times in which we live. As well as the economic aid which was being sought there were implications also for the steel-using manufacturing sector in Australia which feared extensive price rises as a result of the aid sought for the steel industry. The steel industry plan, eventually worked out and negotiated with BHP by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), was a masterpiece of innovative planning in terms of assistance to industry. Probably the most important distinguishing feature of this prototype industry agreement is the quid pro quo arrangement on which its success depends. I refer to the obligation for BHP to invest from $500m to $800m during the bounty period to improve its capacity and also BHP's undertaking to retrench no more workers. The unions, for their part, are committed to accepting productivity improvement measures and wage restraints. As well as lending the industry a hand in pulling itself up by its own bootstraps, the Government has also committed itself to spend $100m on job creation and training in the depressed steel centres, over and above what is being spent on existing schemes, as I have said previously. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! There is too much audible conversation close to the honourable member for Grey. One would expect his colleagues and others to be listening to him. However the honourable member for Lilley appears to me to be the only one who is being very attentive. Mr O'NEIL —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, my colleagues are so overwhelmed by the fact that this Bill is going forward and are so happy with this Bill that I can understand their enthusiasm. With these initiatives the Government has honoured its pre-election promise to maintain a viable and efficient steel industry to ensure that there is further provision for more help if the market share falls below 80 per cent. The aid plan could cost the Government up to $427m a year in direct bounty payments for steel production over the next five years. As a rescue plan for industry it has been praised in many quarters as a model to be copied wherever an essential industry is under threat. The cost to the Government of the original BHP submission would have been prohibitive. One departmental official commented that it would have cost very little more to nationalise the industry. But the social as well as the economic cost of the other alternative-allowing the steel industry to die-would have been so great as to be unthinkable. In Whyalla, an industrial city 400 kilometres away from the capital, built up as a deliberate State-fostered project in decentralised industry, there has already had to be a radical reorientation of outlook. Where once the problem was planning for expansion, the reverse is now the case. A high content of social welfare aid has become the norm. The work force has shrunk a lot. First, some 1, 500 jobs went with the shipyard in 1976. Since 1981 the steel industry work force has shrunk by about 1,000. To reach the target of 4,000 some 400 jobs are still to be scrapped, which means that BHP is forced to tighten up on apprenticeships and traineeships, which present the main opportunities for school leavers in the city. It also means encouraging early retirements. Both of these factors mean increasing the already high welfare cost. The ramifications when an industry is lost are widespread. In 1976-77, when the Whyalla shipyard was lost, there was a migration of something like 2,000 people from Whyalla. In return, because of the vacant Housing Trust homes in that area, many single parent families came from Victoria, New South Wales and other States to fill up Whyalla. Of course, now Whyalla is very much a social welfare town. Without knocking the people who are on this type of assistance, this certainly does not help the community and it certainly puts great strains on the welfare people within that community, such as St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army, who do a magnificent job in that area. Particularly in a small country city such as Whyalla the ramifications of losing an industry are extremely wide and really horrific. So I commend the Federal Government for taking this intiative. I also commend the unions and BHP for getting together and making this steel package deal, which is such a positive step. My concluding remark is that it gives me great satisfaction to speak in this House in support of this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.34) —I move: That this Bill be now read a third time. I would like to wind up the debate by making a few comments on the contributions that were made by the various honourable members who spoke in this debate. I must say that they were rather varied and, in some cases, very colourful. So colourful, in fact, was a speech by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) that his flatmate, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), has fled the chamber. This reminded me somewhat of his reaction when the people of Queenstown reacted very favourably to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he visited the South West of Tasmania recently. The honourable member for Franklin was so appalled that the people of that area did not boo the Prime Minister, that they in fact cheered him and wanted to shake his hand, that he came into this House and suggested that those people should be dismissed as Tasmanians. He was quite insulted to think that his fellow Tasmanians could greet the Prime Minister so cordially. The honourable member for Denison, who I must add in some instances is more renowned for his brashness and colourful interjection in this House than for his reasoned debate, certainly provided us with a very interesting discussion tonight. There was a tinge of envy in him that I rather appreciated, that what this Government has managed to do was not able to be managed by his own Government. While he spoke of Brian Loton, Sir James McNeill and Mr Balderstone as being great Australians, I think it would be fair to say also that in that category should be placed the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button ) because he has managed to perform in the Australian sense an absolute miracle in dragging together the disparate forces that constitute the steel industry and to come up with a plan that will resuscitate it. Mr Howard —He is better than your average. Mr Hodgman —He is a Geelong supporter. Mr JOHN BROWN —I will ignore that. He is also a senator, which gives him a decent disadvantage. Regardless of all those disadvantages, I think that the Minister has done a simply remarkable job in formulating this steel plan, in putting it to the House and in receiving the accord of the honourable member for Denison in doing so. I thank the honourable member for Denison for his honesty. His honesty is not unknown to me. He has many failings, but lack of honesty is not one of them. He exhibited that in full flight tonight and I thank him for that. The reasons that this Government needed to resuscitate the industry were many and varied. The honourable member for Denison touched on a few of them. He mentioned the need for a national steel industry. Every nation with any sense of growth requires a steel industry. We have one. There is no good in indulging in recriminations about why it was failing, who was causing it to fail and what were the reasons for its failure. The job was to resuscitate it. The Minister set about doing that in fine style. The steel industry has importance, of course , as a defence industry, because how can one possibly think about having any defence in a nation as isolated as Australia without a steel industry? A nation such as Australia with a reasonably sized manufacturing industry needs its own steel industry. More importantly, the employment created by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the employment opportunities that were being lost were more than just statistics. They were an absolute social tragedy in the towns where the steel industry is centred-in Whyalla, Newcastle, Port Kembla and Wollongong, cities whose very dependence and social fabric turn around the success of the steel industry. So it was a fact that the steel industry had to be revived. The Minister for Industry and Commerce had the very difficult task of doing that, a task which the previous Government would have liked to tackle but did not know how. The steel industry plan which we have evolved seeks to tackle the underlying problems that have been confronting the steel industry for a long time in a very positive way. The Government recognised that the difficulties facing the steel industry were such that the normal, traditional methods of protection and tariff building were not the ways to tackle the problem, that assistance alone would not solve the problem. What was needed was a tripartite agreement between the forces that constitute the steel industry. The unions needed to give a pact of industrial peace and increased productivity, which they gave very generously. I think it should be noted, particularly in regard to some of the comments that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) made when he spoke so disparagingly about the work force and the steel industry, that the people who work in the steel industry have one of the least attractive jobs known. Anybody who has seen the dreadful environment in which the men work will understand that if any section of the work force in Australia is entitled to a 38-hour week, surely the best example is the people who work in the steel industry, with the heat, the dust and the discomfort. Of course they are entitled to the same conditions that apply to people who work in offices. That should not be a matter of debate. It needed the unions to give generously, and they did; it needed the Government to guarantee bounties, which it has done to the extent of $71m per annum, to provide encouragement for BHP to invest further; and it required a commitment from BHP to invest very heavily in the updating of the machinery and techniques used in the manufacture of steel in Australia in order to bring this tripartite agreement to fruition. That is exactly what happened. I stand here very proudly tonight representing John Button, a very great Australian. I am sure all members of this Government are pleased that in our first year in office we have been able to resuscitate an industry that is so important to Australia yet was faced with such a delicate situation, in fact with no future at all. I will not go any further, except to thank all those who contributed to the debate. I thank the honourable member for Gray (Mr O'Neil), who represents a steel industry area, and the honourable member for Macarthur ( Mr Hollis) who does likewise. I also thank the honourable member for Denison for his frankness and honesty and the honourable member for O'Connor, who produced one of his normal controversial and not very sensible speeches. We are very proud of the steel plan. As the years of this Government unfold-it will probably go on until the end of the century at least-one of the hallmarks of our success will be that we took the big Australian, BHP, out of the derelict state in which it found itself after seven years of the previous Government, and restored it to prosperity. The company made a profit on the steel industry in the first quarter of our Government's rule. When this five-year plan takes over in January I am sure that the steel industry-those people who work so terribly hard in the steel foundaries as well as BHP-will look to the prosperity which is so important not only to them but also to the nation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. 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 John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. 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 John Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(9.45) —The legislation now before the Parliament is the Prices Surveillance Bill 1983. I inform the House that the Opposition will oppose this legislation and, therefore, the establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority and will vote against the passage of this legislation. The Bill is an unwarranted, illogical and totally unjustified interference in the free operations of businesses in the Australian community. At a time when business profits are at a low level and the economy has bottomed out, with only tentative signs of a recovery, it is nonsense to subject Australian businesses to price surveillance. More fundamentally, however, the Opposition totally rejects the argument that any form of price control or surveillance can ever act to reduce unemployment. Excessive wage increases and not price increases have been responsible for producing the very high levels of unemployment which are now endured by many thousands of Australians. It will only be through those who have jobs postponing further wage increases that a sizable dent can be made in the existing level of unemployment. The Hawke Government was elected on a promise to create more jobs and attack unemployment. Despite the Government's assurances that it understands the link between profits and employment, this Bill, far from facilitating the creation of jobs in seeking to restrain profits, will in fact hinder employment growth. This Bill represents another bureaucratic impediment to free enterprise in the Australian community. It is the latest instalment from the Hawke Labor Government of a clearly emerging pattern of increasing controls on and interference with business, while freeing up restrictions on the trade union movement and, in many cases, placing it above the law. The amendments to the Trade Practices Act which were recently proposed by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) reintroduce a disgraceful double standard for business and unions in this country that was removed by the Fraser Government's amendments to that Act in 1977. The Government preaches and talks sweet reason to the business community. However, the gap between its rhetoric and its actions on this issue is widening. When the concept of a prices surveillance authority was proposed by the then Labor Opposition, the former coalition Government said that it did not support such a concept. We maintain the same view now we are in Opposition. With his peculiar logic the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his second reading speech sought to explain the rationale behind the Prices Surveillance Authority. He told us that the implementation of the prices and incomes accord is essential to our long term recovery. Essential to that accord, he said, is the setting up of the Prices Surveillance Authority. It is very interesting to note that only tonight we have a sample of how misguided is the concept that we can find consensus on every subject. As we debate this legislation tonight the Treasurer, representing the Government, is saying to the business community of Australia: 'Don't worry, fellows, there is nothing to it; it is a pretty toothless tiger; it won't do any damage; we all love profits; we all love investment; we will not do anything to interfere with your happy, benign existence'. Honourable members should ask Mr Dolan, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, whether he believes that statement. Tonight, as we met in this Parliament, the President of the ACTU has issued a long statement saying that the ACTU totally rejects the prices surveillance legislation as being an adequate compliance with the prices and incomes accord. What that demonstrates very importantly, and it is a message that ought not to be lost on this House, is that the notion that we can have consensus on everything is totally false. The notion that if we try to be all things to all men we end up pleasing everybody is totally false. The reaction of the ACTU to this Bill demonstrates very clearly that this Government, sold as it is on the concept of trying to get a consensus on everything, will end up on many important issues that confront Australia not only having a wrong solution to our problems but also, in fact having no solution at all. Mr Cunningham —John, you don't even believe that yourself. Mr HOWARD —I do. In his peculiar logic the Treasurer, in his second reading speech, seeks to explain the rationale behind the Prices Surveillance Authority. He says that the implementation of the prices and incomes accord is essential to our long term recovery. He says that unless the Parliament sets this up we will not have a long term recovery. In other words, he is saying that unless we establish a body which will interfere with normal business operations we will not have a long term recovery. My friend the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), for whom I have a very great respect, shakes his head. I ask the honourable member for Hunter whether he really believes that we now live in an environment of high profitability. Does he really believe that we now live in an environment in which we have to screw down on profits? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Can I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for clarification of which way the honourable member shook his head? I was not too sure which way he shook his head. Mr HOWARD —I do not know. He can go either way he likes. He is a very flexible gentleman. That is one of his many attributes. He shook his head and nodded non- compliance-a very good word. I ask the honourable gentleman whether he really believes that at our present stage we need a body that will screw down on profitability levels in Australia. Having prematurely returned to full indexation and having delivered the incomes side of its deal with the unions, this Government now comes into this Parliament and in effect says: 'We are required to deliver on the prices side'. The Government does not really say to us that it believes we should have price surveillance, price control or price interference. It makes no case that excessive prices are being charged in the Australian community at present. What the Government is really saying is: 'Look fellows, will you please pass this legislation because we have this understanding with the trade union movement? We think they have delivered on the wages side and unless you pass this legislation we will have great trouble on the prices side'. The Treasurer is really asking us to accept a watch on prices as a means of creating more jobs. That really is an absurd and fanciful proposition. This Government has presented the prices and incomes accord as the panacea for all our economic ills. Even the fiercest critics of our side of politics in the economic debate would acknowledge that the centrepiece, the very heart of this Government's economic strategy, is that blessed prices and incomes accord. I could quote to honourable members speech after speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer in which both of them have said: 'Unless you have the prices and incomes accord the whole house will fall down'. Mr Cunningham —You told us interest rates would come down, too. Mr HOWARD —No, I have never believed in a prices and incomes accord. I regard a prices and incomes accord as an absolute fraud on the Australian community. I think that all we have to do is give the prices and incomes accord time to fail. As surely as day follows night the prices and incomes accord in this community will fail. If honourable members want any argument about that let me quote to them from what is probably one of the most respectable economic journals in Australia, and that is the latest edition of Syntec. There is a very interesting comment in Syntec which says: In the US, the phenomenon of high Budget deficits . . . They are high in the United States-- Mr Cunningham —They are not high here. Mr HOWARD —They are not high here? Mr Cunningham —No. Mr HOWARD —Eight per cent of gross domestic product-the highest in our history- is not high? Expenditure this year is higher than it has been on any occasion since the Whitlam years. But the Deputy Whip, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), a good, centre road member of the Australian Labor Party, says that 8 per cent is not high. Heavens above, I hate to think what will happen when the Budget is brought down next year. I put that aside and return to my text for the night. Syntec, in its latest edition of 5 December 1983, says: In the US, the phenomenon of high Budget deficits forcing high exchange rates has been squeezing vulnerable industries for two years. Honourable members should listen to this: The redeeming feature-- that is in the United States, not in Australia- has been a remarkable downward flexibility of US wages. The chances of such flexibility here have been put paid to by the Hawke Government's return to full wage indexation. It is this that invests the prospect of a sustained upvaluation of the $A beyond the short term with unreality. What, in reality, Syntec is saying is that one might be able to get away with high Budget deficits if one is prepared to run a sensible wages policy, but if one imagines that one can get away with high Budget deficits by running the crazy wages policy the Hawke Government is running at present one is absolutely in cloud cuckoo land. That is what one of the most respected economic journals in Australia is saying at present. This Government has presented the prices and incomes accord as a panacea for all of our economic ills. We are led to believe that a successful prices and incomes accord will lead us to the promised land, the Utopia of great prosperity . I will not surprise members of the House when I say that I do not believe that the prices and incomes accord represents such a panacea. I have already said that the accord will not be able to stand up to wage pressures as the recovery picks up momentum. Already we have seen three major breaches of the indexation guidelines-in the building agreement, the food preservers' case and, most recently, parliamentarians' salaries in New South Wales. The latter has been led by none other than the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, the Premier of New South Wales, the person who came to the National Economic Summit Conference and said that three problems were facing Australia-jobs, jobs, and jobs. What is his contribution to this problem? Not only did he lead and sanction that disgraceful wage breakout in 1979 when power workers in New South Wales were disgracefully given a 36-hour week and the consumers of electricity in New South Wales were denied the opportunity of lower tariffs but also the Federal President of the Labor Party has presided over a naked breach of the prices and incomes accord by leading the grab of New South Wales members of parliament for a 5.5 per cent increase in their parliamentary salaries. Every member of the Australian Labor Party who sits opposite knows darn well that that is an indefensible breach of the prices and incomes accord. Just as the Prime Minister had no answer to the censure motion today, just as the Prime Minister could not defend the indefensible, Mr Wran cannot defend the indefensible increase in parliamentary salaries in New South Wales. That represents a totally cynical breach of the prices and incomes accord. But what is the response of the Federal Labor Government? Asked the question, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said in this House: 'Well, in respect of that question it is very difficult and, of course, it is something that is within the province of the New South Wales Government. If you really push me and if you really force me to say so, I do not really approve of what Mr Wran has done, and I will sit down very quickly'. That, of course, is the sort of hypocrisy and cynicism we have had. We have the Treasurer , the Prime Minister and other members of the Government saying that unless we hold this accord we will have great disaster. The bottom line is a government that has returned prematurely, unjustifiably and quite stupidly to full wage indexation. But that is not enough for this Government. None other than the senior Labor Premier in Australia, the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, is leading a 5.5 per cent salary grab in New South Wales. Yet still members of the Government say in this House that the great panacea for all our ills is this prices and incomes accord. They say: 'Look at what is happening. Everybody is sticking by it. It is all working. It is hanging together. We are all shoving together, brothers against this great difficulty. We are all pushing in the same direction'. Of course, the reality is that they are not pushing in the same direction. Just as the Premier of New South Wales could not stop his Caucus grabbing a 5.5 per cent increase, so the national leader of the Labor Party in Australia, the Prime Minister of this country, could not stop his Caucus grabbing the reinstatement of their mate, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). That just illustrates the weakness and the bankruptcy of Labor Party leadership in Australia at present. That is the second example of how this prices and incomes accord has been breached. Of course, the Minister for Employment and Industial Relations is nowhere to be seen. Did he issue a rebuke to the Premier of New South Wales? Did he call Mr Wran into conference? Did he say: 'Look, Neville, you are putting us in a spot. You are the guy who believed in jobs, jobs and jobs'? No, it takes a question from the Opposition in this Parliament to elicit a feather duster of a rebuke for the Premier of New South Wales. That shows how absolutely empty and bankrupt is this prices and incomes accord of this Government. I and everyone on this side of Parliament believe that the accord, with its return to full wage indexation, will retard our economic recovery and the creation of new jobs. Of most concern, however, is that the accord will guarantee a continuing high level of unemployment. It will be the most damning indictment of this Government if, after its first term of office, there is no reduction in unemployment. All the facts at present point to a rise in the number of unemployed. In the projections presented to the Economic Planning Advisory Council the Prime Minister's own Department demonstrated the folly of a return to full wage indexation, projecting an unemployment rate of 11.4 per cent in 1984-85 and 11.1 per cent in 1985-86 under the more optimistic outcome. Despite the Government's attempts to discredit these projections and despite the selective approach of the Government towards economic projections, some of them because they are politically convenient and spot on-those that are polictically inconvenient have to be totally discredited, which shows the remarkable double standards of this Government-the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has joined the ranks of the Department of the Prime Minster and Cabinet. Its pessimistic outlook projects an unemployment rate of 10.6 per cent in 1985-86. I wonder how even the honourable member for Hunter will be able to explain to his ALP branches in 1985 that the Hawke Government, elected on that great promise of reducing unemployment, has failed so abysmally after two years to reduce the level of unemployment. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has predicted 10.6 per cent unemployment in 1985-86. The Government has pointed to the creation of 90,000 jobs since April as evidence that it is on the track in its target of 500,000 new jobs in Labor's first term. The real truth, which the Government is seeking to withhold, is that since March, when it was elected, only 30,000 jobs have been created and in seasonally adjusted terms only 54,000. The election of a Labor Government in March was viewed with such dismay by many businesses that the number of people in jobs fell by 58,000 in April. Faced with this bleak prospect for employment, even from its own advisers, it is illogical for the Government to be seeking restraint on prices or to interfere with the profits of business. The Treasurer makes much of the mandate that the Government allegedly received from the electorate and the Summit to introduce price surveillance. However, the Government is deluding itself if it says that it has full support from business to establish this authority. The relevant section of the communique issued at the Summit said: The employers accept that the Government has a mandate to establish a price surveillance mechanism. Many employers believe this is unnecessary . . . The one clear message from business representatives at the Summit was that an increase in the profit share from the existing low levels was essential if new employment opportunities were to be created. I suspect that the Treasurer has some philosophical difficulties with this legislation, and I think in some ways his heart is not really in it. If he does not have some reservations about the concept of the Authority, why has he gone to such great lengths to stress that the legislation is a mechanism not for price control but merely for price surveillance? The Treasurer seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to say to the business community: 'Listen fellows, this authority is not as bad as you thought it might be'. Since his appointment, the Treasurer has continually told us about the importance of profits in creating jobs. At the Summit he said: We recognise that the private sector accounts for a major proportion of total employment and this must continue to be in a mixed economy like ours; that sound profits are an essential precondition for increased employment in the private sector; that profits are currently at historically low levels; that even in an improved economic environment a competitive market-place will generally provide an effective safeguard against effective profits. All of that is eminent common sense. If the Treasurer really believes that and is prepared to practise it, then I am on the Treasurer's side. He reiterated these sentiments in his second reading speech. One would think that in making these observations the Treasurer was in reality arguing against a price surveillance authority, but despite all that rhetoric and all those fine words we still end up with a benighted price surveillance authority. If he really holds this view, one has to ask why the Government, and in particular the Treasurer, introduced a Bill to establish a price surveillance authority. The answer is very clear: This Government must make a pay-off for the deal it has done with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Treasurer's arguments supporting the need for this authority are less than convincing. The Government's argument is that if there is to be wage restraint, it is also reasonable to expect price restraint, which will be assured through its price surveillance authority. The need for price restraint is not sustained when one examines what has happened to the profit share in recent years. Business profitability in terms of the profit share to gross domestic product has fallen to an historic low of less than 13 per cent from around 15 per cent in the late 1970s and a relatively constant 17 per cent during the 1950s and 1960s. The great problem that those such as the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) and others on the Government side who argue that one needs some kind of price surveillance mechanism have to confront is that when we had high profitability in Australia we also had high employment. If one looks at the economic history of Australia one finds one undeniable trend: As the profit share made by capitalist enterprises fell, so did the levels of employment. Unless the Government can restore the levels of profitability in Australia it will never restore the levels of employment that we enjoyed through the 1950s and 1960s. The only way to restore profitability to the levels required by the business community at the moment is for the 90 per cent of us who have jobs to give up the prospect of further wage increases. It is the stubborn refusal of the Australian Labor Party and a Prime Minister, who claims he has a 70 per cent popularity rating, to show some leadership on that issue which will be a very costly lesson for the Australian community. What is the good of having a 70 per cent popularity rating unless one is prepared to put that popularity to some use ? Once again the Prime Minister has demonstrated that, faced with a choice between duty and popularity, faced with a choice between duty and mateship, he will always use the easy option. He will always take the easy way out. He will always foresake and shirk his national duty as the leader of this country and take the easy way out. So unless we can restore that profitability we will not have a rise in employment. The previous Government recognised the importance of the profit share in job creation. That is the reason why we had the wage pause. If it had not been for the wage pause honourable members opposite would not be waxing fat politically on the lower level. Even the honourable member for Hunter nods assent to that. Everybody in the Labor Party knows darn well that the economic success claimed by the Hawke Government is due entirely to the fruits of the previous Government. But honourable members opposite, being very clever fellows, have made the cardinal mistake of prematurely claiming all the credit. I have news for them. Having claimed all the credit for the good news now, thinking that this is the smart short term thing to do, when things go sour as they surely, inevitably will at the end of next year, they will not be able to blame us. They will not be able to blame the overseas economy. They will only have themselves to blame. Of course, what this Government has really done is adopt a very short term political strategy. It will come home to roost by the end of the next year when those interest rates start to go up again. I wonder then how much the present Treasurer will really believe that water does not go uphill. He will have great trouble with all those honourable members opposite. I can imagine the good old honourable member for Burke who is seated on the Government side getting up in Caucus and saying: 'You cannot allow those interest rates to go up. That is absolutely disgraceful. I believe in the free market when interest rates are going down but when they are going up that is an entirely different matter. I have an entirely selective approach'. The honourable member for Burke nods his head in agreement. Of course he agrees with that. He has an entirely selective approach to the free market as far as the Australian economy is concerned. As far as I am concerned the Prime Minister and the Treasurer can come into this House and they can claim as much credit as they like for all the good things that have happened to the Australian economy over the last few months. Every time the Prime Minister says that the drop in the inflation rate, the improvement in growth and the lower interest rates are all due to the brilliant economic policies of the Hawke Government, the more confident I am that when those trends start to turn against the Government, as surely they will by the end of next year, he will not have available the excuse that this is due to the former Government. He will not have available the excuse that this is due to the world economy. He will be left with one pathetic explanation that, somehow or other, those great economic policies of his that have been in operation only since March, which are producing such great results now, have suddenly gone wrong, and they are now producing such terrible results. It is a great strategy now and the Government is getting full marks politically now. It is scoring all the points now. But it is still a very long way from the next election. By the time it comes around to the next election a bit of time will have passed. Some water will have gone under the bridge and a lot of people will say: 'Hey look, Prime Minister, you told us three months after the last election that all the good things were due to you. Now you are asking us to believe, 23 months after the last election, that all the bad things are due to the former Government. Somehow or other you have that all wrong, Prime Minister. We might have accepted , three months after the last election that things that were happening were due to the former Government, but we find it a bit hard to accept that 23 months later'. All I can say is that I applaud the present political strategy being adopted by the Hawke Government. I know that it is making it a bit uncomfortable for us now but I do not care about what is happening now. I am worried about what will happen before the next election. I say to honourable members opposite: Over the Christmas recess they ought to reflect on the strategy of their Prime Minister. I think he has been demonstrated to have feet of clay on this. I think he is following a very dumb strategy. I think he will wind honourable members opposite into a lot of political trouble long before the next Federal election. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(10.16) —I felt a certain sympathy for Hansard during the course of that last speech because, on a number of occasions, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) burst into uncontrollable fits of laughter, and well he might have done so. I am sure that that will be the reaction of a great number of people in the Australian populace who will be forced to read that speech. Why will they be laughing? They will be laughing because of the record of the person who just made that speech. The dire predictions that he made as to what will happen under our policies were very much the sort of thing that we saw come about in the last seven years. What did the discredited former Treasurer preside over? First of all, he presided over the greatest rise in unemployment for 50 years-unemployment that got into double figures. He presided over interest rates which again were at record high levels. I can tell him here and now that the Liberal Party would still be in command in my electorate of Kingston if somehow or another he had been more successful in the interest rate area. He presided over rises in inflation, which theoretically was the first priority of the last Government, which again went through the roof. The previous Government had no success in its strategy of fighting inflation. What was the result? What was the upshot of all these policies in the last year of the Fraser Government? We had negative growth in this country, negative growth in gross national product for the first time in 20 years. If the honourable member for Bennelong is the sort of person who is giving us the recipes for economic success in this country then it is really just as well that he is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is really just as well that that is what he will remain unless his own Brutus-like ambitions are successful. It is disappointing indeed that the Opposition is opposing the Prices Surveillance Bill. It is disappointing perhaps but not surprising because, like the Bourbons, the Opposition has learned nothing and it has forgotten nothing. We, on the other hand, are following a different strategy, a strategy which we believe is working, a strategy which involves-there should be no shame on our part in saying so-consensus and consultation. It involves consultation with the main elements of the economy, with business and the trade union movement. We are not ashamed of that because that is the way in which we believe the kind of prosperity which is already coming about under this Government will be continued , expanded and used to attack the great problems confronting us, particularly the great problem of reducing unemployment. The strategy to which I refer, of course, and which this Bill implements, is the prices and incomes accord. It is quite true that we were taxed by the Opposition before the election about the time it has taken up to work out the prices and incomes accord. Of course, it did take quite a time. Nevertheless, I think it is beginning to be recognised that it is a durable accord. It is one on which the Government has no shame in saying that it will deliver. That accord had two great elements. One, of course, was on the income side and on that the Government has delivered. It has put it in place and has the agreement of all the main parties to a system of centralised wage fixation. But now we are talking in this Bill of the other leg of the agreement, that is to say, the prices leg. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, that, too, was agreed at the National Economic Summit Conference. It has been developed since then by a working party of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, of business, of State and local government and of community groups to the point that we have now reached. I would like to recall to the House the details of the prices and incomes accord as it relates to prices. They are relatively short. The first point reads: A pricing authority will be established which will be given legislative criteria by which it must assess the validity or otherwise of price rises sought by corporations and the public authorities within its jurisdiction. It is considered unnecessary to attempt to regulate prices of all corporations if the large corporations, which are generally the price-setters in their industry, are subject to public surveillance. There is surely no quarrel with that. The second point reads: The legislative criteria will be designed to ensure that enterprises do not earn profits beyond levels necessary for the maintenance and the expansion of the enterprise, that real wages of employees are protected, and that unnecessary cost increases are not reflected in higher prices. It goes on to say in this regard: . . . the amount by which wages may increase beyond that warranted by increases in prices and national productivity will not normally be allowable as the basis of a price rise. The third point from the prices and incomes accord reads: The pricing authority will operate in a less legalistic manner than the former P.J.T. so that cost to the corporations concerned, and the time involved in processing price rise applications, will be less than those which previously applied. The last point deals with the strengthening of the trade practices legislation to promote more effective competition and to do away with monopolistic practices . That is the genesis of the Prices Surveillance Bill that we have before us. It implements, at every point, the provisions of the prices and income accord which were agreed upon and made the subject of the communique at this unprecedented event, the National Economic Summit Conference which was held very early in the life of this Government. This Bill reflects not just, as the discredited former Treasurer said, some sort of a deal that has been made just with the unions; it reflects a genuine consensus which embraces all aspects of the Australian economy. The general approach of the Bill-this is the one aspect on which I think one could agree with the discredited former Treasurer-is the fact that it does take very great account of the need to preserve the health of the private sector. It is quite clear to honourable members on this side of the House that there will not be a genuine, sustained, lasting economic recovery unless jobs are created in the private sector. This Bill puts no difficulty in the way of that recovery; indeed, it is carefully drafted to ensure that that recovery will come about. The Government is well aware that the majority of workers in Australia are employed in the private sector and that also, as part of that, profits need to be such that investment can take place and jobs can be created. It seems to members on this side of the House to be merely the sensible approach to economic management. It is not the dirigiste or directionary approach that the discredited former Treasurer was speaking of, but very much a pragmatic and sensible approach. One thing that is exemplified in the Bill is the selective approach to price surveillance which it embodies. That selection is one which focuses on certain areas. They are areas where effective competitive disciplines are not present at the moment and where price and wage decisions have pervasive effects throughout the economy. Both conditions will have to be met before a body is made subject to the surveillance that is contemplated in the Bill. In other words, it has to be an industry which has pervasive effects throughout the economy, such as the petroleum industry, and it has to be one within which the most effective discipline and the most effective price for a State discipline-that is to say competitive market forces- is not operating at present. We are looking at covering a few strategic industries in this Bill. I have already mentioned the petroleum area. The Bill specifically abolishes the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority and brings that under the provisions of this Bill. But two other bodies stand out for attention, namely the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Australian Postal Commission. These bodies are mentioned specifically in the Bill. I have no particular quarrel with Telecom or Australia Post, but the fact is that they are in a monopoly position. It is certainly well understood by all concerned that there is a concern with their pricing policies. Industries that are not mentioned in the Bill, but which I can perfectly well imagine may very well be covered in the future, could be the steel industry-indeed, that would fit well with the Bill we have recently debated in this House-and the pharmaceuticals industry where again there is a certain lack of effective competition. The Bill also does not apply to State authorities. It is again the case that certain State authorities enjoy the position which is referred to in the Bill, namely that they have pervasive price effects and that they are in a non- competitive situation. It is the intention of the Federal Government to enter into consultations with the State governments to see whether there can be agreement on bringing State authorities within the purview of the Bill. But to say that this selective approach-this approach which merely looks at those few industries which have these pervasive effects-is some kind of socialist blueprint that can arise only in a mind as fevered and as, if I might say, distorted as that of the discredited former Treasurer, there is no element in it of the kind of grand plan he seems to have in mind. It is also the case that under the Bill industries which are selected for price surveillance will have to be approved by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) before some sort of investigation is instituted. I ought also to speak of the mechanisms which are proposed. These are by no means draconian. To start with, the Government must nominate the producer of goods and services which fits in under the Bill. If a particular producer is named, the discipline which applies to it is simply that the producer must notify the Government of any intention of bringing in a price rise and must give three weeks' notice of that intention. Should the Government decide to investigate that particular price rise it has three weeks to say yes, no, or maybe. In other words, no great bureaucratic investigation which will last for months is envisaged, it is simply a three-week consideration of the proposed price rise in a strategic sector of industry. Within three weeks an answer must be given. If the answer is yes, of course there is no problem. If the answer is that the price rise should not proceed, the Government may, if it wishes, institute an inquiry which again, must be over in three months, but during that three months an interim price rise is possible by agreement between the Government and the organisation in question. So it is hardly a draconian measure . Finally, since the discredited former Treasurer mentioned the matter, I want to turn to what he said was the condemnation by the Australian Council of Trade Unions of the Bill. I have in front of me the ACTU's Press release, which looks a very long way from condemnation to me. I will read out the points in the Press release: The ACTU does not believe the body will be adequate unless: First the Government initiates specific examination of key pricing problems in the community That is precisely what the Bill contemplates. The second point is as follows: The Pricing Authority operates in conjunction with the appropriate industry councils in the development of industry-plans, e.g. the Steel Industry. Again, that is envisaged in the Bill. The third point states: All existing price regulatory systems which exist at Federal Government level are brought under the authority of the PSA. Clearly, the system that has already been brought under the authority of the Prices Surveillance Authority is that dealing with petroleum. That is specifically provided for in the Bill, and there is certainly provision for the other systems which operate at Federal Government level. I am thinking of airline fares and possibly the charges for Aussat which would be contemplated within the structure of the Bill. The fourth point states: The public corporations such as Telecom, Australia Post and AUSSAT come within its jurisdiction in early 1984. Telecom and Australia Post are specifically contemplated within the Bill. Doubtless Aussat, when it commences operations will also be included. I must say I do not quite understand the fifth point, which reads: The PSA when established determines a firm set of price guidelines for general application in the economy. I am certain that that philosophy can be incorporated by negotiation. The final point is as follows: The composition of the PSA does not simply reflect a continuation of the remnants of personnel involved in the petroleum Products Pricing Authority. Again, one can see in the Bill that a structure is contemplated which will meet that concern and meet it thoroughly. I have to agree with the following point made tonight by the Treasurer in his statement: The ACTU'S points are not generally inconsistent with the PSA's intended operation as conceived by the Government. I thoroughly endorse that remark. I draw attention to the feeling of the Government that this legislation will underpin the recovery which we now see emerging. We know very well that one of the ways in which recovery can be destroyed totally is by an unwarranted blow-out of wages or prices. The concensus approach, the consultative approach which this Government has brought to the management of the economy, is reflected very well in this Bill. We believe that that is a much better approach than the divisive confrontationist approach of which we have seen far too much in the past seven years. We have seen far too much of it from the point of view of the misery it has brought. There is a so-called misery index, and once it goes over 30 we know that the Government that presides over it is in trouble. When inflation, interest rates and unemployment can be measured in double figures, that is when this rather crude rule of thumb misery index goes over 30. As we all know, the misery index rose under the Fraser Government to a level which might make many honourable members on this side of the House, particularly those who are new, wonder what on earth possessed the former Prime Minister to call an election in the first place. We do not propose to have a misery index of that kind, and this Bill will be conducive to the successful management of the economy, upon which this Government has made such a start. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I inform honourable members that we have present in the gallery Mr Bert James, the former member for Hunter, who served for 20 years in this House. On behalf of all honourable members I extend a very warm welcome to Mr James. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(10.34) —I am sure that at this time of the evening the former honourable member for Hunter would not have expected such low key conciliatory presentations. The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) obviously wrote his speech quite some time before the presentation of the Prices Surveillance Bill and the bringing on of this debate. Today the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions said in Melbourne. The Federal Government's Prices Surveillance Act in its present form poses the first serious threat to the prices and incomes accord. I venture to say that it is not the first serious threat. Rather it is a revival and an aggravation of a very serious threat posed by the determination of the Food Preservers Union, some of the building industry unions, and some other militant unions to try to break the accord by getting more than is awarded in wage increases by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is important to note that the honourable member for Kingston has spoken with the same rhetoric which was used by this Government before the election and shortly after the election but which now bears no resemblance to what is happening today . The President of the ACTU, with whom the present Government has formed this wonderful accord, has said that the ACTU and the union movement might have to reconsider the commitment in the wages area of the accord if the prices side was not adhered to, adding the planned legislation we are now discussing destroyed the prices element in the accord. Indeed, Mr Dolan, the President, went on to say that not one member of the Executive of the ACTU supported the legislation in its present form. One is finding that the Government is trying to be all things to all people. It is trying to impress the trade union movement with the fact that it is moving in respect of prices and it is trying to claim the support of the business community by saying that it is not really doing so. It is all done with mirrors. It is all cosmetic. I move on to a further statement by the President of the ACTU. In relation to a series of questions posed by him at his Press conference he said: Unless these questions are positively answered, the ACTU will not accept the Prices Surveillance Authority as established as satisfying the basic conditions of the Accord. He said that he would be having talks with Labor Party officials on the issue next Monday. I ask: What communication is this that there will be a discussion next Monday, when the legislation will certainly be through this House and most probably through the Senate as well? The Executive resolution added that if the Federal Government staisfied the ACTU that the Authority was capable of operating consistently with the objectives of the accord, the ACTU would co-operate with it. One has to ask why this has not been done before. Why is that that the parties to this great accord have not resolved their differences, despite what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in his second reading speech were lengthy and apparently almost continuous meetings between the trade union movement and other interested parties in the preparation of this legislation? Why was it introduced into this House if not one member of the Executive of the ACTU supports it? With due respect to the honourable member for Kingston, that Press release alone puts the lie to his pious hopes that the Bill now before us is in line with the accord. Nevertheless , the Treasurer himself said that. In his second reading speech he said: Substantial portions of the Government's prices and incomes policy are now in place. Establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority will help to complete the implementation of this policy and will encourage price restraint as a counterpart to the wage restraint being exercised by wage and salary earners under the wage fixation principles established by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is the view of many employers, many economists and the Opposition that, far from implementing a policy of wage restraint, what we have before us is the application of the full consumer price index, which can only lessen the capacity of employers to employ all of those who are now in jobs, let alone those in the lists of the unemployed. Many employers would agree with this statement a little later in the second reading speech: The best form of price restraint comes from the effective operation of competitive market forces. They would be asking why the price of labour is guaranteed automatic indexation- indeed, it seems under this measure something over and above that if industrial muscle is strong enough-when the prices of goods and services are treated differently. The employers before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission observed that the capacity of the economy-that is, the market-place of which the Treasurer speaks-to sustain wage increases was such that wage increases were not justified. Nonetheless, under threat of industrial action by the two parties to the accord, the Government and the ACTU, the Commission, having regard to its own statutory duties, felt it had to grant wage increases, even though it knew that they must reduce competitiveness and reduce the capacity of industry to employ people. We find, as the honourable member for Kingston said, that the Bill does not apply to State authorities. He said piously, as the Treasurer said, that there will be consultations with the major State government authorities to try to get them to observe similar guidelines. We know that from the outset of the working party mentioned in the second reading speech the States rejected the idea of any surveillance over their authorities, and that includes all the four Labor States . They are anxious to get revenue regardless of where it comes from, regardless of the expense to the consumer, regardless of the impact on inflation or jobs and regardless of the fact that it is fundamentally in breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the prices and incomes accord. The Treasurer said that this Bill incorporates legislative guidelines which will require the Authority to exercise its powers and perform its functions having regard to the need to maintain investment and employment including the influence of profitability on investment and employment. The accord upon which this legislation is based shows that neither the Government nor its partner in the accord, the ACTU, acknowledges or understands the importance of profits, investments and jobs. One contrasts with objective (A) objective (C) in the second reading speech which states: (c) the need to discourage cost increases arising from increases in wages and changes in conditions of employment inconsistent with principles established by relevant industrial tribunals. The Treasurer, in his second reading speech, made the following sad statement. This approach thus places an obligation on business to comply with the wages side of the prices and incomes accord which matches the commitments already given by the overwhelming majority of unions. The Government recognises that, where a company has clearly and strongly resisted attempts at breaching the wage system, it should not be subject to a second possible penalty and in these circumstances it is not intended that the Authority would disallow cost increases. If necessary, where it is clear that a company has taken all reasonable steps to resist a breach, a ministerial direction under section 20 will be issued to the Authority that the resulting cost increases should not be disallowed. This House and the employers of Australia are entitled to know by what criteria the Treasurer will conclude that a company has taken all reasonable steps. Is it a question of how much the company bleeds? Does it have to withstand a strike of two weeks, four weeks, six weeks or more? If it is in the situation that H. J. Heinz Co. Aust. Ltd was in, will it find that when it has passed on an extra $15 , $16 or $20 over and above what the Commission authorises it can then pass its price increases on to the consumer, the consumer of products such as that being, again, the ordinary men and women of Australia. The second reading speech indicates that those kinds of consumer goods will be exempted from coverage by the Authority. We are entitled to answers. We are entitled to certainty. Will the Treasurer ask the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, for example, whether a company has reasonably behaved in withstanding a claim over and above that which the Commission will authorise? This is not the first problem facing the accord but it is an aggravation and continuation. It could be a fatal problem facing the accord if the effect of the ACTU's opposition to this Bill is to encourage the Foods Preservers Union and other militants to go over and above the accord and, therefore, over and above the idexation of wages. It is bad enough that the accord locks our centralised wage fixing system into indexation. There is a world of difference between a centralised system and criteria which necessitate the automatic application of a consumer price index to award wages. But it is worse still when one sees a Budget which has been framed on the basis of the accord, which is based on the application of indexed wages and to which the national wage case gives effect and then finds, as this Bill is being debated, that the ACTU Executive unanimously says that it does not support the Bill. That is a great start for the accord. The Government, through the Treasurer, has an obligation to inform the House why this situation has occurred. For a government of great consultation and communication it has let itself down very badly indeed. Let us look at the accord itself. Quite apart from the disasters into which the accord has led us, the accord itself posed a major danger to Australia in that the union militancy and power, which we know exists in Australia, are not subject to any kind of sanction or limitation. It is all a matter of honour. Until today it looked as though the accord was being carried out to the letter but now it appears that even the letter is not good enough for some unions and the Government has probably opened up the kind of anarchy which the most pessimistic critics feared when the accord was announced. The Government said, when it gave a commitment to the accord, that it would create a better industrial relations climate by encouraging the settlement of disputes without recourse to legislative or common law penal provisions. The Government then set about systematically dismantling any and all legislation which could be seen as restraining the unlimited use of strikes, boycotts and other industrial tactics which unions may use to attain their ends. But the ACTU wants even more stringent control over the employers. At the same time as the Government is taking away restraints over union behaviour it is being asked by the unions to impose even more stringent controls over employers regarding prices than is contained in this legislation. Who is the Government to let down-the unions or business? In the name of the accord Labor has already abolished the Industrial Relations Bureau. It has introduced and passed legislation which enhances further the position of the trade unions as an elite in our society. It has repealed the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, the legislation which the previous Government introduced to protect the provision of vital and essential services in the community. I am sure most people would agree that in the absence of any constitutional essential services powers it is reasonable for a government to have legislation such as the CEEP Act to use as a last resort in national emergencies. But the Labor Government repealed the legislation at the very time that it was preparing this legislation to interfere with management regarding prices. It has also removed the power of the Commonwealth to invoke the no work as directed no pay provisions against Commonwealth employees who take industrial action to disrupt services to the public. That is a common law right generally available to employers in the private sector but Labor believes that the Public Service unions should be immune from such measures. So much for service to the public! The Government has restricted the ability of the Commonwealth to redeploy or retire surplus or inefficient public servants. In addition, the Government has made it clear that it intends to revoke section 45D of the Trade Practices Act-another step to put the trade unions beyond the laws which apply to the rest of the community. Trade union power can be as monopolistic and restrictive as any use of corporate power, yet objective (B) in the second reading speech is aimed at hitting the apparent monopolistic and restrictive use of corporate power. At the same time it is removing that power in the hands of certain trade unions. The imposition of collective boycotts on innocent third parties, often small businesses and therefore, collectively major employers, is an abuse of power of the most serious kind. Section 45D has had some success in curbing this abuse but the accord commits the Government to remove the curb and restore the abuse. The Transport Workers Union is particularly anxious to flex its muscles against owner-drivers. It has been agitating for the early removal of section 45D. The Opposition will vigorously oppose the repeal of section 45D, as it is opposing this legislation, unless, of course, there is a guarantee from the Government, which I am sure will not be forthcoming, to have equally effective legislation enshrined in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Otherwise, the prospect of secondary boycotts becoming a common and legitimate industrial tactic will convince investors that militant unions will ultimately triumph over the moderates. If there are no constraints on militancy, moderate union leaders will find it increasingly hard to retain office. Prices will also rise and there will be more work for the Prices Surveillance Authority. The prices and incomes accord has given trade unions a system of wage indexation which no other country would even contemplate. It is only in Australia that the myth is perpetuated that an increase in prices represents a capacity to pay increased wages. The Federal Government had a great opportunity through the National Economic Summit Conference and the subsequent Premiers Conference to expose the absurdity of that proposition once and for all. It did not even try to do so. Instead, it has condemned Australia to a resurgence of the wage price inflation spiral which has been so extremely damaging to our economy in the past, and which has been so unnecessarily effective in condemning so many Australians to unemployment. In the final analysis, it was this which forced the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to grant the 4.3 per cent increase in September, even though it knew that the employers were right in making out their case that they had no capacity to afford such increases without worsening inflation and worsening employment. All the predictions of the relevant departments confirm that that was so. We all know that the prices and incomes accord was a cosmetic action to seduce the Australia public into electing the Government on the basis that it knew best and that it could control the union movement. The important point in respect of this Bill is that the prices and incomes accord is anti-profit. Not only is it anti-profit but it is proudly so and blatantly so. Yet profitability is a major means of price restraint. It is a major means of reinvestment and job creation. It is a damning indictment of that document that the word 'profit' appears only three times in its 37 pages, and each time it is in the most restrictive context . Each time it is anti-profit. But yesterday's profits are today's investment and tomorrow's jobs, and none of the parties to the accord understood that. They do not understand the fundamental economic truth that without profitability there will be no investment and without investment there will be no jobs. The accord concerns itself, to the exclusion of almost all else, with the distribution of income, not with the creation of income. Nowhere does it get anywhere near recognising that money must first be made before it can be appropriated through taxation and given to the needier members of society. The hard truth is that there are no longer enough wealthy people to soak. Maybe that will start to be driven home as the 4.3 per cent wage rise flows through to the wage packets. It is now flowing through all of the awards. It is estimated that the increase will push nearly one quarter of a million Australians, most of them trade union members, into a higher tax bracket. Unemployment is now at a post-war record, with the prospect of a further deterioration between now and the New Year as employers struggle to absorb increased wage costs. Of course, they also have to meet associated costs, many of which are the responsibility of the four Labor State governments. I refer to costs such as payroll tax, superannuation and penalties and the recent savage escalation in charges by those State Governments, including electricity and gas tariffs and petrol excise. It is no wonder that there is some need for price increases on the part of industry in order to survive and to retain jobs. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said in his speech on this Bill, we are now a very far cry indeed from what the Premier of NSW called for at the Summit Conference, that is 'jobs, job, jobs'. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his Curtin Memorial Lecture, was trying to find other ways in which he could get people out of the registered job market so that he could give the appearance of reducing unemployment while not creating jobs. This Bill, as part of the essential framework of the accord, is defeatist. If one looks at the August Budget, which also is based on the accord, it is also defeatist. The September consumer price index shows the effect of the wages pause and its benefits in bringing the inflation rate below double digit figures for the first time in two years. The effect of the measures now proposed will be to deter investment and job creation. At the same time there are no deterrents in this Bill to protect the employer against the ravages of militant unions. Let us take a situation where a union says: 'The 4.3 per cent rise is not enough. We will belt our employer around the ears until he concedes more'. He is able to concede more if the price surveillance mechanism says that he has bled enough, that he has lost enough production and allows him to pass on an over-award wage increase in the form of prices. To do that is to defeat the accord. It is to defeat the decision of the Arbitration Commission to prevent and settle industrial disputes. The Opposition finds that the fragile consensus between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions is broken down. It is the employers who are being hounded. Therefore the economy will be greatly set back in the process. This Government has failed, and this Bill is a symbol of its failure. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.55) —Mr Deputy Speaker and colleagues, I came into the House tonight hoping that for once we would hear a constructive debate on the Prices Surveillance Bill 1983. I thought it would be constructive because this Bill is central to the prices and incomes accord, which has the support of industry, the trade union movement and the people of Australia in general. Instead of that, what do we find? Mr Macphee —The employers are not party to the accord. Mrs KELLY —The employers participated in this very House in agreements made at the National Economic Summit Conference. The prices and incomes accord was the basis of all those discussions at the Summit. For once one would have expected that the members of the Opposition would have given some support to this legislation. Instead we have not heard one word of support. What has the debate been about tonight? It has been about the economy and union bashing, not about an issue which is so central to the economic direction of this country. There has been no discussion also about the effect that this Bill will have on consumers in Australia, mainly because the Opposition does not care about them at all. The Opposition has taken this opportunity to bash the unions and to criticise the Government's economic policy when the rest of Australia was hoping that for once it would come out and say: 'Well, go and try it. You have a mandate to do this so we will give you our support'. The Opposition is not big enough to say that sort of thing. All it wants to do is criticise. It is never prepared to provide any constructive policies and tell us what its alternatives are. All we have heard tonight is a barrage of criticisms. The Bill before us tonight represents a major part of the Government's prices and incomes policy. It shows that we are living up to our commitment. I refer to the promise that we gave in the election in March this year. This policy has been enthusiastically endorsed by the community and by business groups as well as the voting public throughout Australia. The Prices Surveillance Bill will complement the incomes accord, which has already proved successful. Mr Andrew —It was not as successful as the wages pause. Mrs KELLY —It would be totally unrealistic to expect unions to forgo wage increases. The interjection from a member of the Opposition was to the effect that the accord has not been nearly as successful as the wages freeze. How long could the wages freeze have gone on? The Opposition when in Government had no wages policy at all. It simply said: 'Forget about the workers. Forget about their demands and just do not give them a wage increase while prices are going up'. How long do honourable members opposite think that situation could continue ? The Opposition does not provide any alternative at all. It would be absolutely unrealistic to keep the screw down on wages without doing anything about prices. This package is all about equity. Equity dictates that both measures are required. This Bill completes the package of the prices and incomes accord. Under the prices and incomes accord, the strongest unions in monopoly positions have agreed that, for the good of the whole community, they will restrain their wage demands provided that corresponding price restraint is also introduced. Instead of the members of the Opposition complimenting the unions for that action, all they have done is criticise and bash them. The Government's policies have proven to be correct. We have already brought inflation down to well below the double digit level. The prices surveillance legislation will further promote this trend. In that way economic recovery can proceed, more jobs can be created and inflation can be kept at a minimum. In introducing this measure the Government has rejected the approach of the previous Administration, with its adherence to rigid fiscal and monetary policy in its effort to hold the economy down. It proved to be a total failure and was rejected by the electorate in March this year. Mr Gayler —Even Mr Macphee did not want it. Mrs KELLY —The Opposition cannot work out what its policies are at all. Members of the Opposition have different views. Mr Macphee has a totally different view on the direction of wage policy to that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard). The Labor Government does not believe that rigid restraints and controls are the appropriate method to use in promoting sustained growth. Rather , as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) outlined in his second reading speech, the best form of price restraint comes from the effective operation of competitive market forces in which the majority of businesses in Australia operate. The Government recognises that sound profits are an essential requirement for increased employment in the private sector. It is determined that prices surveillance will not be used to impede growth. Rather, the intent of the Prices Surveillance Bill is to concentrate only on those goods and services where firstly no effective market forces operate and where effective competition is absent, and secondly, where prices and wage decisions have a strong significance throughout the economy. Where both these conditions exist, the Treasurer may determine that prices in these cases be monitored. Because the new legislation will apply only when these two conditions are met, most Australian businesses will not be subject to surveillance. It is expected that the major public authorities such as Telecom Australia and Australia Post will be monitored. It is hoped that, after further consultation with the States, major State authorities will be similarly brought under surveillance. I think that is critical to the success of this legislation. In this way, the benefits of the wages and prices policy will flow through to everyone. The Government is confident that with so many co-operative Labor governments in power, products and services in the States that satisfy these two basic criteria will be brought under surveillance. Special consideration will be given to the surveillance of petroleum products. Mr Goodluck —Aha! That is the one I will be waiting for. Mrs KELLY —It is the one I will be waiting for, too. What we are finding is an acknowledgment from the Opposition that there is a great need for uniform prices surveillance legislation. I do not know why the honourable members opposite are not on this side of the House supporting this legislation tonight, instead of taking the view of the Opposition of destructively criticising it. Mr Carlton —Price fixing has never worked. Mrs KELLY —But price surveillance does work. Mr Carlton —Rubbish. Mrs KELLY —We will find out, because thank God we received the mandate from the people in March. Under this legislation, the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority will be subsumed under the new Prices Surveillance Authority. It is hoped that, with consultations with the States, we will see an elimination of differential retail prices from State to State set by the various State pricing bodies. It is critical that we get the States to agree to the petroleum pricing functions being passed over to the Prices Surveillance Authority. Petrol prices are clearly an area where surveillance is needed. If we look at the increases over the past five years from the September quarter of 1978 to the September quarter of this year, we find that there has been a massive increase in petrol prices of 145 per cent. In the same period there was an increase in the minimum award rate of 57 per cent, of average weekly earnings of 68.2 per cent and an increase in the consumer price index of 61.2 per cent. Mr Carlton —There is something called OPEC that had something to do with it. Mrs KELLY —There have been extraordinary circumstances in relation to that price increase. I recognise that. But the increase has been variable from State to State. Where there have been price fixing arrangements, as there have been in New South Wales, we have seen a much more moderate increase in the price of petrol. Mr Cadman —New South Wales is the worst in the Commonwealth. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member should compare the situation of New South Wales to that of the Australian Capital Territory. In the Australian Capital Territory petrol prices are at least 5c a litre more than they are in New South Wales. That is totally inequitable. There is a price differential between Tasmania and Victoria and in South Australia, despite the fact that we are supposed to have had the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority working. It is absolutely critical that the Government should negotiate- Opposition members interjecting- Mrs KELLY —Members of the Opposition, by their interjections, clearly indicate that they should be on this side of the chamber supporting this legislation. If they believe in uniformity in the price of petrol in Australia they should be voting with us. In such circumstances, it is absolutely critical, particularly in regard to the price of petrol, that the Government should negotiate for the handover of these powers from the States in order to establish a centralised approach to the surveillance of petrol prices. It is fairly obvious from the figures that I have given that the petrol companies have not exercised any restraint in the setting of prices by virtue of their monopoly position. So that is a very good example of where the Prices Surveillance Authority should be able to take action. In the past, I have been very critical of the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority. It has done little other than simply rubber stamp requests for price increases. The result of having this large number of different petrol pricing bodies and different administrative arrangements from State to State has meant even higher prices for motorists. No one in this House can deny that fact. The Australian Capital Territory, of course, is in by far the worst situation. This is an issue about which I have spoken frequently in this House and outside this Parliament. It is about time that we had some uniformity. Take, for example, the situation of the Australian Capital Territory, just to demonstrate the inequalities which exist. Petrol comes into the Australian Capital Territory by train. The same petrol is sent out to Queanbeyan and sold there at 5c a litre cheaper than it is sold in Fyshwick. That is absolutely ludicrous. It is sold at 5c less in Queanbeyan when there is already a State tax in New South Wales. It does not make any sense at all. What we need quite clearly is to have this function placed under the control of the Prices Surveillance Authority. This is just one example which demonstrates that need. The prices surveillance legislation will enable the Treasurer to direct inquiries into the pricing structure of any goods and services which have significant impact on the national economy. However, to a large extent, the majority of Australian businesses will not be affected by this measure as they already operate in a competitive market environment. What could be fairer than this legislation? Yet the Opposition still will not support it. The Government recognises the need to encourage the private sector. This legislation is not anti-private sector legislation. We know that to get more jobs we have to have growth in the economy. We need to have more employment opportunities. The guidelines of this legislation are very fair and reasonable. It shows only the smallness of the Opposition that it is not prepared to accept the opportunity to give this legislation the chance to work. These guidelines will ensure that voluntary compliance with price restraints will become accepted practice by employers and manufacturers, just as voluntary compliance by the unions in relation to the new wage indexation guidelines has resulted in an undertaking to make no extra claims during the duration of the present wage system. Both sides need to make this commitment in order to ensure that the benefits of the prices and incomes accord flow to all Australians. I ask the Opposition to consider its position, to give us the opportunity to get this legislation working, to give this legislation the opportunity to ensure that the prices and incomes accord can work. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(11.10) —The Government's Prices Surveillance Bill, which is before the House tonight, could cripple many small businesses in Australia. At a time when business should be free to make a profit it has been strapped again by this Government with more and more bureaucratic red tape. This legislation before the House tonight is another example of that red tape. Small business is being throttled daily. This legislation is part of a flood of controls and regulations which are squeezing industry in Australia today. As every day goes by the Government puts more regulations and more controls on private sector industry and business. Mr Punch —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think the honourable member for Higgins has pulled out the wrong speech for the wrong Bill. He is totally out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. The House will come to order. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member listens he might learn something. Honourable members opposite are not interested in small business. They do not care because they do not know and do not understand it. Many small businesses could go to the wall as a result of this legislation. This legislation will take away initiative from the small businessmen and businesswomen. It will take away the incentive to make a profit, because it will impose profit and price control. If honourable members read this Bill they will see that it will impose total, ultimate, price and profit control on business. It gives the Treasurer and the Prices Surveillance Authority total control over profit. Mr Reeves —Can't you tell the difference between control and surveillance? Mr SHIPTON —I suggest that the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who will not be here after the next election, read the Bill. Legislation of this sort has not worked in the past and will not work in the future. It is far reaching and dangerous legislation which could destroy the private enterprise system as we know it today. In addition, this legislation will, as surely as night follows day, cost Australians jobs. Mr Gayler —You are talking nonsense again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Leichardt is out of his seat . All interjections are out of order, particularly when an honourable member is out of his seat. I think there ought to be more decorum than has been exhibited. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that small business is day to day subject to legalism, expense and interference by this Labor socialist Government. This prices surveillance legislation is another example of that. Small business has not been consulted about this legislation. It will not have any say. The Authority will become another bureaucratic and autocratic authority and the small business sector will not be represented in its deliberations. It will be just another expense and burden for small business to bear. The legislation is part of a surge, a flood, of regulations and controls on business under this Government. It is part of a web, part of a pattern, of new socialist controls over the business sector. It imposes another burden on business, which is crying out today for relief from red tape, for less regulation and less control, and for the Government to get off its back. Here we have the ultimate form of control and regulation of business-profit control and price control. If honourable members read the Bill they will see that it will impose investment control. Mrs Kelly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I heard the honourable member give this speech on 15 August last year. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you again for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I point out to honourable members opposite that this legislation arises out of the accord between the Government and the unions, not the employer groups. The unions in this country have a monopoly of power. Wages are higher than they otherwise would be because of the monopoly of union power. They are higher than they otherwise would have been under the previous Government's wage pause because of the agreement between this Government and the union movement struck in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the 4.3 per cent wage increase. The Government does not understand the matter and is not prepared to let labour supply and demand work. I do not accept the argument put by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he introduced this legislation that there is a necessity for price control. If prices go higher the market-place will work. Otherwise consumers will not buy and substitutes will emerge. The market-place will work and it must be allowed to work. An argument about abuse of power would be a matter and a subject for trade practices law. This legislation was introduced as a result of pressure from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We would not be debating this Bill tonight if the ACTU had not put pressure on the Government two or three weeks ago. Let us consider the prices and incomes accord; let us look at the Australian Labor Party and let us look at the Government. We all know that the Labor Party, this Government which sits opposite tonight, is the parliamentary wing of the union movement. We know that. Honourable members can not deny that because it is true. But we have now a link, not only between the parliamentary party and the union movement but also between the union movement and the Government. We are locked into union control. We can look at the accord and see that the Treasurer has absolute power to carry out the terms and conditions of the accord at any time. He has total and ultimate control. Mr Gayler —Have you read the Bill? Mr SHIPTON —I have read the Bill. What is more, I will read the honourable member for Leichhardt a bit of the accord. The Treasurer has power at any item to instruct the Authority through his direct action and through guidelines under the accord. The accord states: The legislative criteria will be designed to ensure that enterprises do not earn profits beyond levels necessary for the maintenance and the expansion of the enterprise, that real wages of employees are protected, and that unnecessary cost increases are not reflected in higher prices. That will mean total and ultimate control of private enterprise in Australia. I will read that again. It states: . . . enterprises do not earn profits beyond levels profits beyond levels necessary for the maintenance and expansion of the enterprise . . . Mr Gayler —You don't understand. Mr SHIPTON —What the honourable member does not understand is that profit is necessary for jobs; profits are necessary to pay wages; profits are necessary for investment; and investment is necessary for jobs. The sooner the honourable member realises that the better it will be for Australia. The tragedy is that the honourable member does not understand. Profits mean investments; profits mean wealth for the community; and profits mean jobs for the community. What the accord means is that the ACTU will finger the Treasurer from time to time and say to him: 'We want you to have an inquiry' in terms of that criteria which I just read from the accord. No business, large or small, will be safe from trade union pressure in this country because, as soon as there is some form of dispute , the trade union movement will go to the ACTU and tell it that it wants it to finger that business or that enterprise. Pressure, express or implied, will then be put on that business through the effects of this legislation. It is the most threatening form of legislation that I have seen in my time in this Parliament. It overrides and intrudes into the rights of businesses and also into the rights of the States. Honourable members opposite ask whether I have read the legislation. I invite them to read it. It overrides the laws of the States. It will cause confusion among businesses. In the Labor States where there is price control, which price control mechanisms will apply? Will this legislation control the price of beer in those States which have beer pricing legislation? I ask honourable members opposite to give us the answers. I ask them to read the Bill. In addition to conflicting with State laws, this legislation conflicts with trade practice laws. Clause 17 (3) (b)-I suggest that honourable members opposite read that clause-clearly conflicts with the Trade Practices Act and with trade practices legislation. What I am saying is that this intrusive legislation on the private sector is creating more confusion. We will now have more overlapping of Acts and of legislation, more confusing bureaucracy and red tape of businesses to put up with. If honourable members read this legislation we will have total price and profit control and the ultimate form of control over businesses in Australia through control of the capacity to limit investment . There is power to control investment. Power is given in this legislation over investment decision. This is an unprecedented interference with private enterprise in this country and the decision making of private enterprise. There is power in this Bill to reach into every shop in every high street, into every factory and every family business in Australia. Mr McVeigh —We can't allow that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Darling Downs to be quiet. Mr SHIPTON —It is a threat to the professions, the self-employed and, as I have said, every family business in Australia, whether on the Darling Downs or elsewhere. The Government, instead of introducing this legislation, should be concentrating on encouraging a climate for growth of enterprise and business. It should be encouraging profit, encouraging investment, encouraging the creation of wealth and the creation of jobs. This Government has done absolutely nothing for small business since it came to power. In its policy speech it had a small business action program. What has it done? It has not implemented one aspect of that program. Since it came to office the Government has done everything contrary to what is needed to create a healthy and prosperous climate for small business in Australia. I say to the Government: Get off the back of small business. Give small business a fair go. What about a fair go for the self- employed, the owner-operated family business, and all business in Australia? It will be a great pleasure to vote against this legislation. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(11.21) —With all the logic present in an empty jam jar, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has just given a marvellous speech on one Bill or another, none of which is before this House. Lest I should dignify anything he said, I do not want to dwell on his speech save to mention two points. He mentioned price surveillance or price control, as he repeatedly put it, of State authorities. If the honourable member for Higgins knew anything about the Constitution of this country, which this Parliament serves, not only would he know that was impossible but also, if he had read the second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), he would know that it specifically pointed out that that is not the case. His point about price control of small businesses is equally specious. Mr Shipton —Just see what happens in the market-place and see the confusion you create. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Higgins has just finished his speech. Mr McVeigh —It was a good speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It was a good speech, I agree, but he has had his opportunity and I do not want him interjecting any more. Mr PUNCH —I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your ruling on the behaviour of the honourable member, but I question your judgment on the quality of his speech . The honourable member went on to mention price control of small businesses. Again, if the honourable member had read the Bill or the second reading speech of the Treasurer he would have been seen that that is not the case. I do not want to dwell on that because much of what he said was completely illogical. However, I want to answer some of the criticisms put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the arch aspirant to the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia. He came into this House tonight, having been the Treasurer of this nation for seven years-- Mr Hodgman —Five. Mr PUNCH —The honourable member for Denison says five years. Having governed over the greatest economic malaise in the history of this country since the Great Depression, instead of making a positive contribution for those opposite he attempted to tear apart this Bill by saying that it is an unwarranted, illogical intrusion into business in this country. In that context he went on to criticise the budgetary and fiscal management of this country under the Hawke Labor Government. Let us just put the debate back into perspective. For the benefit of those opposite, let us hear some reminders about the person who came into this House not an hour ago and said that this legislation was an unwarranted, illogical intrusion into business. This is what the Australian newspaper said on 10 March about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: Much of it-- that being the economic malaise of this country-- must also be laid at the door of his treasurer of five years, Mr John Howard, who was responsible for framing, with Treasury advice, the last five Budgets of the Fraser government. Honourable gentlemen opposite should listen to this: It will take a long time for him to live down his ministerial legacy of huge budget deficits this year and next. That was said this year of the man who came into this House and spuriously attempted to tear apart this most worthwhile legislation. If that is not enough, let us have a look at the economic record of the man who has the audacity to criticise this Bill. He talked about our unemployment projections for the next couple of years. Let us get the record straight. He presided over the Treasury of this nation when in one year unemployment climbed by a quarter of a million Australians. A quarter of a million Australians went out of work because of that man and the policies that honourable members opposite clung to. He doubts our criteria and he doubts our projections for the alleviation of unemployment in this country. Let me just say that if those opposite care to look at the recently published figures they will see that the latest results show that when the figures are extrapolated over three years the Hawke Government's pledge to create 500,000 jobs over the next three years will be easily reached. In fact, 82,000 jobs have been created since April. Compare that with the Liberal Government's record last year of a growth in unemployment of 250,000. If that is not enough for the honourable member for Higgins and other honourable members opposite, let us see what the recent figures do show. The seasonally adjusted level of total unemployment fell to 694,000 persons in October, or 9.9 per cent of the labour force, compared with 718,600, or 10.3 per cent of the labour force , in July. Let us have some answers to that. Our policies are working under the prices and incomes accord and that is the evidence of it already. The economic manager of yesterday went on to criticise us so blandly, I believe with the support of honourable members opposite. He had the great audacity, with more hide than a herd of bulls, to come into this House and slam us about a wages policy when the Opposition can present no alternative wages policy to this Parliament, to the people of the country and the business community or the trade union movement. The wages policy debate coming from those on the other side of this House reads like a three-part Greek tragedy. We have the evil curser, Howard, who seeks to blame everything on wage and income earners in this country, and who buried the axe deep into the social fabric of this country while he was the Treasurer. Then we have the hero of the masses who sits in quietness, scathing away in the private forums of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) who secretly sits over there agreeing with much of what this Government is doing in its wages and incomes accord. Mr Goodluck —It is true. Mr PUNCH —As the honourable member for Franklin says, it is true. The honourable member for Balaclava is condemned by his own men. Look at the laughs on the other side! They cannot answer that; it is a party divided with no alternative policy. The third part of the Greek tragedy on the wages policy debate concerns the light humour from the court jester, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock ) who is prepared to agree with anyone on any given day, whoever has the numbers . The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to say that we on this side of the House see the success of the wages policy as being Utopia, as the panacea of it all. Again he has misrepresented us. The Bill before the House tonight, like everything else associated with the prices and incomes accord, is part of a total package. For the first time in living history this country has had presented to it a total economic package of fiscal, monetary and wages policies designed to do something about the economic malaise of this country. Let us just have a look at the alternatives from the other side. There has been no projection of a decent wages policy, as I said, and no fiscal or monetary alternatives put forward. Not one single alternative has come from the other side of this House; yet honourable members opposite have the audacity to argue against this Bill. Members of the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Higgins, went on to talk about the lack of business confidence that this legislation will create, bashing business and the like. Again, let me quote some figures from the recent Australian Bureau of Statistics outlook of expected private capital investment. The Age of 29 November says: They show the first sign that the decline in investment of the last years is levelling off. That is, the decline in investment that occurred under those opposite. Those figures show that if the expectation of the same level of private investment in the December quarter as in the September quarter comes about it will be the first time since the September quarter in 1981 that there has been an upturn in private investment. All that is occurring right now when the business community of this country knew full well that, under the party platform presented to the people in March and endorsed by the National Economic Summit communique, this Prices Surveillance Authority legislation would come to this Parliament before the end of this year. It must be said yet again that the vast majority of people in this country, the business community and the trade union movement, agree with this legislation. The only people left out, the only odd people, are as usual the odd people on the other side of the House. The philosophy of this Bill is consistent with an overall approach to the economy. It is price surveillance, not price control. Its intent is to monitor and examine prices, not to freeze prices in every sector of the economy. Mr Hodgman —This is Canberra, not Moscow. Mr PUNCH —That is right. As honourable members would be aware, to do what the Opposition is accusing this Government of attempting to do a referendum would have to be passed in this country similar to that put by the Whitlam Government in 1974. Everything that those opposite are accusing this Government of doing is completely unconstitutional, and they know it. They know that that is not the intent of this Bill and never has been. They should know also that the Treasurer knows, as he outlined in many speeches in this Parliament and outside, and every member on this side of the House knows that, if economic recovery is to occur there must be a substantial uplift in private sector profit levels. Everyone on this side of the House knows that. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) -I warn the honourable member for Darling Downs , before he takes a point of order, that it should not be a frivolous one. This is a wide ranging debate. Mr McVeigh —My point of order is that some of us are intensely interested in this debate. We are here to listen. We are interested in price surveillance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs, I think, has gone almost far enough. It has been a wide ranging debate. Many things have been said. What is the honourable member's point of order? Mr McVeigh —My point of order is that, whilst the debate is a wide ranging second reading debate, it is absolutely irrelevant for the honourable member for Barton to comment on speeches made by the Treasurer outside this Parliament. It is all right for him to quote speeches by the Treasurer on the Bill. It is too far ranging for him to quote speeches made by the Treasurer outside this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs has no point of order. I warned him about taking a point of order that was not relevant. He has no point of order. I warn him against doing so again. I call the honourable member for Barton. Mr PUNCH —As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by that shining example of the other side of the House, the Treasurer, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and every speaker from this side of the House recognise that the restoration of private sector profits is fundamental to growth in employment and to the rejuvenation of economic growth in this country. The difference is that the Government recognises by this Prices Surveillance Bill that, if that is to come about, this country needs a bit of unity and consensus, not just talk about it. The industrial relations realities of this country are that no longer can any government, whether it be a government of the colour of those opposite or ours, can reasonably expect the trade union movement to bear 95 per cent of the burden of economic recovery. The unions have carried that burden for seven years and will no longer carry it; and nor should they. It is morally bankrupt for those on the other side to expect anything different. If they persist in that, they will do irreparable harm to those they purport to represent; that is, the business sector. While ever there is cause for industrial relations conflict in this country, in this fragile economic time, there will be no hope for a growth in employment and there will be no hope for the restoration of profits which the Opposition talks so dearly of. I say again, Mr Speaker: The Prices Surveillance Authority is a very small price to ask of the business sector in this country for everything that is being asked of the trade union movement. When the trade union movement is asking to be its own policeman to rein in possible renegades, it is not asking much for the Prices Surveillance Authority to receive the unanimous endorsement of this Parliament and the total support of the Australian community. Finally, I call on those members opposite who are fair dinkum about seeing the economic growth of this country revitalised and employment opportunities for the young and the middle aged, who have been thrown out of work, really come to pass , to cross the floor, away from the honourable member for Bennelong, come over to this side of the House and vote with the Government for sensible and moral justification of the Prices Surveillance Bill. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.36) —The Government's commitment to the establishment of a Prices Surveillance Authority, to monitor and assess the justification for price increases under contemplation by selected corportions and public authorities has all the earmarks of a sop to the trade union movement, although I must confess that the statement of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions might give the lie to that sentiment. This is a measure which seeks to ape programs tried in the 1970s in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The United Kingdom is mentioned despite denials by the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) during this year's election campaign that price and income controls were in force in Britain during the years 1973 to 1978. Presumably the Prime Minister's faulty memory or lack of knowledge can be explained, although it must add to the alarm felt by many that the Government is not aware of lessons learned in a country with a comparable economy. Worse than that, the Prime Minister of Australia, when making his election promises and when promoting the prices and incomes accord and the so-called consensus, did not even know that policies similar to his own had been tried and had failed in the United Kingdom in recent times. It is an indication of the lack of competence on the part of this Government that despite the intention and the details of this legislation being known as long ago as May, when details were published in the Press, the Government has only now managed to bring it before this Parliament. Because this is the second last day of sitting we are necessarily curtailed in our opportunity to have a good look at it. We would have liked to have a good look at the almost absolute control of the Government and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) over the PSA. We would have liked to look at what will be necessary and very high qualifications of at least four of the top people who are to be appointed to the Authority. We would have liked the opportunity to explore the criteria to be observed by the PSA in determining its objectives, its conduct and its ultimate findings. We would have liked the opportunity to examine in some detail the inability and lack of resolve on the part of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to come to grips with the underlying causes of price instability which fall within his area of ministerial responsibility. Instead, I am constrained and I will deal with a few points only. Telecom Australia and Australia Post, as well as other Commonwealth statutory authorities, will be required to do what they have always done but will now also be subject to surveillance by the PSA. We will have another statutory authority in the PSA which will have, amongst its other duties, the task of keeping existing statutory authorities honest, as if that were not a legitimate responsibility of government. Once that might have appeared ludicrous but not in these days of big and expanding government which offers to become even bigger government under this Administration. The PSA is not expected to allow prices which might be sought to be raised to accommodate unauthorised wage demands. I suppose that is fair enough at first glance but it begs these questions: What will, in the immediate future or somewhere down the track, constitute an unauthorised wage demand? What is to be an authorised wage demand? Most importantly, who authorises an authorised wage demand? From the last of those three questions flow these other questions: Will the Government authorise wage demands, will the Australian Council of Trade Unions, or will individual unions, such as the Builders Labourers Federation? Despite meaningless platitudes along lines that these are sensitive issues and that they have been and will be discussed, there are many out there in the commercial world who await answers to these questions with more than eager interest. They will deplore the fact, as I do, that we have not had those answers so far from the Minister or from the Government. Furthermore, business will not be reassured by the prospect of the Authority having the discretion to allow interim price increases pending its rulings and under the conditions laid down in this legislation; nor will business be reassured by a promise that notified increases will not be allowed until the Authority makes a determination within what is, in effect, an unspecified 'specified period'. Unless the PSA exercises its discretion to allow an interim increase, notified price increases will not be allowed in part or in full measure during the notification, examination and inquiry periods. Business might be required to wait for months and months, for all this Government cares. Prescribed firms will be less than enchanted to know that legal sanctions may be applied against them if they fail to notify a price increase. They will not be very pleased that no such legal actions are in prospect for unions which do not have to notify campaigns for increased wages for their members. While legal sanctions are not envisaged against firms which fail to comply with the findings of the PSA, the Government has expressly reserved the right to initiate intensive examinations of companies or industries that patently refuse to comply with those findings. In that we have the heavy hand of government which says, in effect: 'You are not bound to comply with the findings of the PSA . But if you do not we will make your life so miserable and put you to so much inconvenience and expense by subjecting you to intensive examination that you will wish you had complied'. Not only does this smack of the heavy hand of government with authoritarian inclinations, but also it promises coercion of the most blatant kind. It may be said that all this was put to the National Economic Summit Conference ; that this marvellous price surveillance mechanism was discussed by big unions, big business and by big government, and that criticisms of the type levelled tonight were not in evidence during or after the Summit. One reason for that may very well be that participants attending the Summit were not asked whether they were agreeable to the establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority. They were in reality only told that the policy of this Government in this respect was to be implemented. Let no one rest on the defence that, because group therapy was practised in the form of a so-called Summit Conference in April, any of the participants were able to influence effectively the policy or this legislation. That opportunity plainly was not there. Drawing on the experience of President Carter's policy of voluntary wage and prices restraint and on the British experience, both of which I would have liked to have gone into in some detail this evening, the best one could say about price surveillance mechanisms is that they may be more of an irritation than a threat to business and the rest of the economy. That would be an extremely dangerous and simplistic conclusion. There is a very real danger that, if the effect of this measure proves to be only an irritation, pressure will grow for tighter controls with more powerful sanctions. Should that happen, the deplorable consequences and side effects of the British and United States experiences during the 1970s will be repeated in Australia. Amongst other things, the ineffectiveness of price surveillance will cause disenchantment in the union movement, and if that happens it is a safe bet that the ACTU and its member unions will clamour for statutory controls on prices. We have already had signs of that in the statement made earlier today by the President of the ACTU. In that event, employers and business will be in the position of having to fight this Government's battles with the union movement while the Government sits by and tut-tuts. The clear inference from the establishment of a proposed PSA is that business has been singled out as a major contributor to the causes of high inflation and even higher unemployment. That is plainly not the case, although I must confess the Government's actions may have already persuaded the community to that point of view. Most importantly, this Government has yet to learn lessons from what happened as a result of similar measures in Britain and the United States of America. They appear to have learnt that the only way government can make people act against their economic self-interest is to threaten them with some sanction. Obeying arbitrary guidelines makes no long term sense for either corporations or unions. To be effective, and to be seen to be effective in the eyes of organised labour, it can only be a matter of time before additional threats and controls are introduced or made to encourage compliance with the findings of the PSA. Meanwhile, there is absolutely no prospect of this Government applying the same thinking to its political base, the trade union movement. Quite the contrary; there is every prospect that deals of the type to be made at the behest of the unions by employers will get the blind eye treatment when those deals are in breach of pay guidelines. A classic example is to be found in the Government's active involvement in and condonation of the deal made in the building industry to bypass its own guidelines. In both Britain and the United States, governments justified taking no action against breaches by organised labour on the basis that settlements were within prescribed limits if 'special' factors were taken into account. Ingenious loopholes were found in those countries, and have already been found in Australia to accommodate powerful unions which the Government will comfort while maintaining a myth that guidelines applied to wage movements remain intact. The outcome of all this will be steps by this Government towards taking actions which are even more arbitrary and politically motivated and towards a situation in which the weak are punished but the organised and strong are not. While there is little hope that it will do so, the Government may well ponder the direction on which it will embark after it establishes the PSA and it may very well consider that in the context of its relationship to the trade union movement it should reconsider its actions-also in the light of the comments tonight of the President of the ACTU. Mr President, in opposing this legislation I urge the Government to reconsider- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that he is in the House of Representatives despite the presence in the gallery of his former distinguished Presiding Officer, Sir Harold Young. I take it that the honourable member has finished his speech. Mr ROCHER —I am suitably admonished. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(11.49) —If one were to take seriously the remarks emanating from the Opposition, particularly from people such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), one would have to conclude that this is yet another example of socialist legislation from the Bolshevik baby eaters of the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Hodgman —I have not spoken in the debate. Mr BALDWIN —I apologise then. That is what the honourable member would have said if he had spoken. In fact, this is a extremely mild and moderate piece of legislation. If it is to be criticised at all I would suggest that, as has been indicated by the response of the Australian Council of Trade Unions today, it errs on the side of not being strong or effective enough in its operation. This legislation fulfils a crucial part of the prices and incomes accord negotiated between the Australian Labor Party and the ACTU prior to the Federal election this year. The establishment of a Prices Surveillance Authority, as previous speakers have indicated, is consistent with the communique of the National Economic Summit Conference which obviously had inputs from a range of the economic actors in our society. It is one of a package of measures that formed part of the accord. It is the second major piece of institutional apparatus that has been set up in pursuance of the accord, the first obviously being the Economic Planning Advisory Council which was established by legislation earlier this year. Basically, it is part of the Labor Party's approach to the whole question of incomes policy where obviously Labor is in favour of a centralised wage fixation system. The Opposition is a little bit schizoid on that particular point with the well-known divergence of view between the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as to whether we ought to have a centralised wage fixation system. In any case, those members of the Opposition who do favour a form of centralised wage fixation or an incomes policy favour the most inequitable variant of that or certainly defended the most inequitable variant. The epitome of that is the wage freeze which was implemented towards the end of last year. I think it would be true to say that there is a wide divergence of opinion or a wide range of evaluations of the evidence on the effectiveness of prices and incomes policies as they have been attempted throughout the world. One thing is reasonably well known; that is, there is a necessary condition of the success of a prices and incomes accord if it is really going to generate good results. I would suggest that there are some very good models that we can point to-for example, Austria which has made the extraordinary achievement of actually having a better inflation-unemployment tradeoff in the 1970s than in the previous decade which is most unusual throughout the Western countries. There are some very good examples of workable prices and incomes accords which have actually produced demonstrable benefits, but a key feature of those successful examples is the degree of perceived equity in the operation of the accord. Therefore, to adopt a totally asymmetrical form of incomes policy that seeks only to restrain one form of income, that is wages and salaries, was the essence of the wage freeze implemented by the previous Government. I suggest if one is interested in a long term incomes policy there is no viability there whatsoever. What the Government is seeking to do with this piece of legislation is to introduce an element of symmetry which was absent from the previous Government's very severe incomes policy-the wage freeze-and to exercise some restraint on the rate of growth of non-wage incomes which obviously includes profits. It is interesting to note that some of the Opposition speakers got themselves into a bit of a quandary by arguing on the one hand that the Prices Surveillance Authority is a useless edifice because it will not be effective and, on the other hand, saying that it is a very bad thing and positively iniquitous because the reduction in prices that will result can squeeze profit margins thereby reducing the availability of funds for investment and new employment opportunities. They cannot really have it both ways. They have to decide whether they think it is going to be ineffective or iniquitous in that sense. I will be commenting on both those facets a little bit later on. Mr McGauran —Not too much later. Mr BALDWIN —I do not know. I will see how we go. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, this instrumentality in the final analysis will be relying on the effect of public opprobrium to force firms to comply with its determinations . Sanctions attach in respect of the requirement to give notification of price increases. Failure of a declared company or person to notify a proposed price increase attaches a penalty. In the final analysis it is up to an individual or company involved whether it is interested and will comply with the recommendation of the PSA, because no real sanctions are built into this legislation other than public opprobrium. As I indicated earlier, if we criticise the legislation on any ground, it is on the ground of the lack of sanctions involved. To some extent I can sympathise with representatives of the trade union movement who have expressed some reservations on the ground that their side of the bargain is subject to reasonably effective sanctions, that is, the requirement to declare publicly an intention to adhere to the wage fixation guidelines as a condition of getting the national wage case flow on, but there is no attempt to restrain the rate of growth of prices. Obviously we cannot restrict price control. To recapitulate those few points, far from being a severe, draconian or socialist measure, as some have sought to describe the Bill , it is clearly a very mild measure that I suggest is an essential ingredient, a necessary element, in the prices and incomes accord. Perhaps I could talk a little about some of the specific provisions of the Bill . It is necessarily a very schematic document. I would expect that over time the sort of criteria to be applied would need to be tightened up quite considerably. One can point to a number of basic conceptual points about what is a reasonable price, what is an appropriate profit margin and a reasonable rate of return, what is an appropriate level of investment and what is a reasonable rate of return on investment. These are the sorts of things that the members of the Authority will have to decide. Under clause 17 (3) (a), the Authority will have regard to: . . . the need to maintain investment and employment, including the influence of profitability on investment and employment. There is associated with that a range of questions that one could ask. For example, one could have a form of investment that was directed towards labour saving technology, in which case the investment and development objectives set out in that particular paragraph might conflict. There is a whole range of questions such as that that the Tribunal will have to try to resolve. Likewise, clause 17 (3) (b) talks of: . . . the need to discourage a person who is in a position substantially to influence a market for goods or services from taking advantage of that power in setting prices. Equally, a range of issues is involved here. There is the whole question of oligopoly pricing-under what circumstances do you in fact have an abuse of market power? It is an issue about which there is considerable economic controversy. One could make a number of other points. For example, there is the whole issue in relation to the two clauses of the Bill that I have just quoted. It is interesting to note that the former Prices Justification Tribunal explicitly took the view that in most cases the appropriate way of financing investment was not by retaining profits but by raising funds on the capital market. That philosophy pervaded its decision making. The Tribunal will have to determine whether it concurs with that kind of thinking. A number of elements in the legislation will need to be clarified over time. Clause 20 of the Bill which enables the Treasurer to intervene and lay down more specific criteria will need to be utilised quite extensively in the early period of operation of the Tribunal. Obviously, analogies and comparisons will be drawn between this legislation and that which governed the former Prices Justification Tribunal, as it was implemented by the Whitlam Government. There are a number of very obvious similarities and also a number of quite distinct differences. Of course, a key similarity is that, in respect of both the PJT and the PSA, ultimately the only sanction imposed to force compliance with recommendations is the sanction of public opprobrium, if such compliance is not given. There are also some important differences. The PJT had a much wider ambit, based on an annual sales basis. Those firms that had annual sales in excess of $20m, a figure that was later modified to $30m, were to be subject to its purview. In this case the Government has sought to avoid that shotgun approach and to look at more specific criteria, in particular to cases of abuse of market power, to specific cases in sectors of the economy where wages and prices have pervasive effects throughout the economy. In other words, a more selective approach is being aimed at. It will also be a less legalistic instrumentality than the PJT. I think that that is a very worthwhile and reasonable objective. The PJT was criticised for being over-legalistic and it was claimed that compliance with its requirements ended up being a significant component of costs in itself. I think that point is well taken and that one of the lessons to be learnt from that legislation is to try to avoid that situation. The obvious question to ask is just how effective the PJT was in restraining prices. There is a variety of viewpoints about that. I will mention just a few. Neville Norman, who is normally associated with a view on economic policy that is hostile to these kinds of instrumentalities, reckoned that the existence of the PJT reduced the rate of growth of prices and the consumer price index by one per cent in its first year of operation and that thereafter it became virtually ineffective. Dr A. Fels, who was a member of the PJT, put the figure at 2 per cent for the first year of operation and Professor John Neville of the University of New South Wales put the figure at 2.5 per cent. So we have a fair range of viewpoints. To refer to one further viewpoint, Chapman and Junor of the University of New South Wales, looking at mark-ups rather than at total prices, reckoned that the PJT in its first year of operation reduced the mark-ups from 9 1/2 to 9 per cent . All those viewpoints indicate some significant or measurable effect in the first year of operation. Most of them seem to show that in subsequent years the PJT had a much less significant restraining effect on price movements. That diminution in the effectiveness of the PJT was, in the main, a consequence of the fact that the PJT itself became subject to political pressures. In November 1974 Mr Whitlam, the then Prime Minister, made a statement which signalled a significant softening in the whole approach of the PJT. I suggest that a key facet of this legislation is the need to avoid a repetition of that experience, a softening of the actions of the PSA and a weakening of its criteria. I just comment briefly on the effect of the PJT on profit margins and what that did to investment. I wish to quote one paragraph from the paper by Chapman and Junor which I referred to earlier. They concluded in broad terms that, while the PJT's operation in its first year restrained prices a bit, that ultimately did not affect investment levels much because firms compensated for that by a greater level of external debt financing. The key paragraph in the paper states: It is concluded that while the firms coming under the PJT show some signs of having had their profitability reduced as a result, this was not sufficient, given their greater access to long-term borrowing, to reduce investment significantly in comparison to smaller firms. I suggest that the suggestion that we will see a diminution of investment, hence of employment, with the operation of this intrumentality is not well based. I conclude by simply reiterating that this is a key part of the prices and incomes accord. It must be made to work if the accord is to be successful and firm steps need to be taken to avoid a softening in the criteria and approach of that body as it develops over time. Thursday, 8 December 1983 Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, 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.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Steedman, A. P.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wells, D. McM.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J. Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.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 McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Jones, Barry Street, A. A. Question so 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 Dawkins) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.12) —Mr Speaker- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.14 a.m. Thursday The following notices were given: 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 a chancery complex and staff and staff housing at Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Mr Hodgman to move- That in the interests of upholding Parliamentary privilege, ministerial responsibility, the highest standards of propriety in Government and, maintaining the dignity of the Parliament, this House demands that the Government's cover-up on uranium mining be abandoned and general business notice of motion, No. 261, be called on for debate. Mr Hodgman to move- That this House notes that- (1) The edited transcript of the conversation between the Soviet spy, Ivanov, and Mr Combe at Ivanov's home on 4 March 1983, reveals that the Soviet floating dock proposal for Tasmania was discussed, and (2) In the light of that evidence, the House is of the opinion that the Government acted in a shameful and disgraceful manner by entertaining negotiations with Moscow for the revival of the Soviet floating dock proposal, and for the basing of the said dock in Tasmania, before Mr Justice Hope's Royal Commission report was even presented to this Parliament. Mr Dawkins to move- That government business shall take precedence over general business for this sitting. Mr Dawkins to move- That the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged: Science and Technology Statement 1982-83-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. C.S.I.R.O. Laboratories Safety Standards and the death of Mr R. Bergamasco- Report of Committee of Inquiry-Paper and ministerial statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Local Government Personal Income Tax Sharing-Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission recommendations-Report-Motion to take note of paper : Resumption of debate. Remuneration Tribunal-Reports and determinations-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Customs Administration and Procedures-New South Wales-Review-Report and papers- Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Federated Ship Painters and Dockers' Union-Interim Report of Royal Commission and statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Special Prosecutor R. F. Redlich-Report and statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Population Forecasts for Australia-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Local Government Personal Income Tax Sharing-Local Government Grants Commissions recommendations-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Department of the House of Representatives-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Anzus Treaty-Review-Ministerial statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Lobbyists and the Australian Government and Parliament-Discussion paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Pensions Means Test-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Grain Harvesters-Report by Industries Assistance Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Airlines Agreement-Reports on Consultations between T.A.A. and Ansett-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Medicare-Government decisions-Ministerial statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Immigration Policy and Program-Ministerial statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Recognition of Overseas Qualifications in Australia-Report of Committee of Inquiry-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Drug Trafficking-Report of Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force-Papers -Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-Report of President-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Criminal Deportation Policy-Ministerial statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Mr Dawkins-To move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted to operate from the first sitting in 1984, for the remainder of this session: Days and hours of meeting Standing order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business - (a) in the first sitting week, on- Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10.30 a.m. Thursday, at 10.30 a.m., and Friday, at 10.30 a.m.; (b) in the second sitting week, on- Monday, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10.30 a.m. and Thursday, at 10.30 a.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the House shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after that termination, unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting. The 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48A be amended to read- 48A. At 10.30 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 8 p.m. on each Wednesday and at 4.30 p.m. on each Friday the Speaker shall propose the question -That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question- That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting, and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 11 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 8.30 p.m. on a Wednesday or at 5 p.m. on a Friday the question before the House is- That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., 8.40 p .m. or 5.10 p.m., as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m., 8.40 p.m. or 5.10 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Routine of business Standing order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday and Tuesday 1. Giving notices. 2. Questions without notice. 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Presentation of petitions. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday and Thursday 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices. 3. Notices and orders of the day. 4. Grievance debate or general business (at 12.45 p.m. on Thursday). 5. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 6. Presentation of papers. 7. Ministerial statements, by leave 8. Matter of public importance. 9. Notices and orders of the day. Friday 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices. 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Matter of public importance. 6. Notices and orders of the day. Question time New standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. At 12.15 p.m. on each Wednesday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that questions without notice can be called on at 2 p. m.: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Precedence for government and general business Standing order 104 be amended to read- 104. Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business shall have precedence of government business commencing at 12. 45 p.m. At 2 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House and forthwith call on questions without notice: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Grievance debate Standing order 106 be amended to read- 106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply to the Governor-General's Speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker ''That grievances be noted'' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment . The order of the day shall stand postponed until 12.45 p.m. and if consideration of the question has not been concluded at 2 p.m., the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put any questions, and, after the resolution of those questions shall forthwith call on questions without notice. General business and grievance debate New standing order 106A be inserted- 106A. At 12.45 p.m. on each Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that general business or grievance debate, as the case may be, can be called on: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting ''at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House'' and substituting ''not later than 8.30 a.m. on each Friday and 12 noon on each other sitting day''. General business-priority to notices Standing order 109 be amended by omitting ''for 2 hours after the meeting of the House'' and substituting ''until 1.45 p.m.''. 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 consideration and report: construction of facilities for the Australian frigate project, Williamstown Naval Dockyard, Victoria (phase A). 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 consideration and report: reconstruction of pyrotechnic section at the munitions filling factory, St. Marys, N.S.W.. 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: Perth airport international terminal complex and parallel taxiway. 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: provision of navigational aids, hydrographers passage, Great Barrier Reef. 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: relocation of parachute training school from RAAF base, Williamtown, N.S.W. to HMAS Albatross, N.S.W. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 7 December 1983: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1983- L1/83-Corporation's Form L: Live-stock L2/83-Compliance with contract specifications (Live-stock) LM1/83-Corporation's Form L: Live-stock Corporation's Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat M1/83-Reporting of Sales (Meat for Export) M2/83-Export of Chilled Sheep Meat M3/83-Compliance with Contract Specifications (Meat) M4/83-Export of Chilled Beef and Chilled Veal to U.S.A. and Canada M5/83-Prohibition of Export of Bone-in Mutton Legs to Canada M6/83-Restrictions of Export of Meat and Meat Products: Slaughter at Registered Premises M7/83-Descriptions of Meat M8/83-Export of Chilled Goat Meat M9/83-Corporation's Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat M10/83-1983 Performance M11/83-Halal Certification M12/83-1984 Performance MQ1/83-Buffalo Meat to the EEC-1983 Export Control Scheme MQ2/83-High Quality Beef to EEC-1983 Control Scheme MQ3/83-Sheep Meat and Goat Meat to EEC (Excluding France)-1983 Export Control Scheme MQ4/83-Meat to U.S.A.-1983 Export Control Scheme MQ5/83-Buffalo Meat to the EEC-1984 Export Control Scheme MQ6/83-High Quality Beef to EEC-1984 Control Scheme MS1/83-Contract Requirements-Shipping of Meat to East Coast of North America and Gulf Ports, U.S.A. MS2/83-Contract Requirements-Shipping of Meat to West Coast of North America Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for disclosure of list of names and addresses-1983-No. 1-List of manufacturing establishments for Bureau of Transport Economics Directions issued by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations pursuant to sub-section 125 (5) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904- Published in Gazette No. S 139, 4 July 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 266 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Is the report of the Administrative Review Council regarding appeals against decisions by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to be implemented; if so, when. (2) If the report is to be implemented will there be a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; if not, why not. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Report of the Administrative Review Council on the review of decisions under the Broadcasting and Television Act was presented to the then Attorney-General in the previous Government on 11 June 1982. The Report is under consideration by the Government and accordingly no decision has been taken regarding right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against decisions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Question No. 380 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Did part of paragraph 15 of the final document of the 10th Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly state it is essential that not only governments but also the peoples of the world recognise and understand the dangers and, in order that an international conscience may develop and world public opinion may exercise a positive influence, the United Nations should increase information on the armaments race and disarmament with the co-operation of member States. (2) Did the Second Special Session on Disarmament (SSOD II) propose and launch a world disarmament campaign to focus on elected representatives, media, non- government organisations, educational communities and peace research institutes. (3) Did SSOD II also propose (a) a world conference on the role of mass media, (b) a council of consciences, being persons eminent in spiritual, scientific, cultural and philosophical fields, (c) collection of signatures for disarmament, (d) banning war movies and toys and (e) publicity and materials for talks by statements from government and institutes. (4) What steps has Australia taken to initiate implementation of these proposals. (5) Can he say what audio-visual materials on disarmament from the UN disarmament library and UNICEF are available from the National Library of Australia. Mr Hayden —The answers to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The proposals listed at 3 (a) to 3 (e) are among a number of proposals made by various delegations to SSOD II for inclusion in the world disarmament campaign. (4) Australia has not implemented any of these proposals as such; but it has contributed $30,000 to the world disarmament campaign and my Department has increased its output of information material on disarmament and related issues. (5) The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following information in response to part 5 of the question: 'The National Library of Australia advises that it has no holdings of audiovisual materials on disarmament from the United Nations Disarmament Library or UNICEF.' Question No. 389 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to any reports of a telecast twice shown on Public Broadcasting Service television to millions of Americans, and in part or whole in several European countries, entitled Nuclear War: the Incurable Disease featuring the major part of a live broadcast to millions of citizens from Moscow by three prominent physicians from the United States of America and three from the Soviet Union. (2) Will he obtain the program for the National Film Library or Parliamentary Library from International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War, 225 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02115, United States of America, and recommend it to television stations in Australia. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I draw the honourable member's attention to the answer by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to your question on notice No. 43 (Hansard 6 September 1983 page 437) which stated inter alia that the Department of Foreign Affairs would be in contact with the Parliamentary Library about the possible procurement of a copy of the film. You will be aware that commercial television stations have independence in programming matters under the terms of the Broadcasting and Television Act (1942). In addition the independence of both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service in programming matters would make it improper for me to make recommendations regarding the televising of Nuclear War: the Incurable Disease. Question No. 419 Mr O'Neil asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: Does the Philippines receive Australian Government aid; of so, (a) what form does this aid take and (b) does the Government intend to continue to provide aid to this military dictatorship. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes. Aid is provided as development assistance, principally as bilateral projects, training and food aid. There is also a modest defence co-operation program, details of which can be provided by the Minister for Defence. (b) The Government intends to continue its development assistance program to the Philippines, in the belief that by so doing it can best help to improve the lot of the Philippine people. Suggestions that Australian aid should be discontinued to certain countries overlook the fact that the result of such action would be to punish the most needy people in a developing country without influencing those who direct affairs. Question No. 480 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1) What are the major categories of (a) military, parliamentary, defence, transport, communication, surveillance and related aid and (b) cultural, technical and other civilian aid, based on personal need, to (i) Indonesia, (ii) Malaysia, (iii) Singapore, and (iv) the Philippines. (2) What conditions have been imposed in each case. (3) What has been the estimated market value of each category at 1983 prices in the periods 1972-76 and 1976-83 in each case. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question as it relates to civil development assistance is as follows: (1) All forms of civil development assistance for which I am responsible are aimed at improving the economic and social development of the recipient community at large, with particular emphasis on assisting the poorest and most disadvantaged groups and areas. For the countries mentioned, the following developmental assistance is being provided in 1983-84: $m Indonesia 46.346 Malaysia 4.164 Singapore 1.505 Philippines 17.515 (2) No conditions are imposed on the provision of civilian development assistance, apart from agreed counterpart contributions by the recipient government of personnel, equipment, materials and funds. (3) In 1983 prices, assistance provided to these countries in the periods 1972- 76 and 1976-83 amounted to: 1 July 1972- 1 July 1976- 30 June 1976 30 June 1983 $m $m Indonesia 283.436 330.497 Malaysia 44.382 56.286 Singapore 8.569 11.086 The Philippines 35.130 86.789 As regards defence assistance provided to the countries concerned my colleague, the Minister for Defence, has provided the following information: (1) A complete list of the main items of military, and military support assistance provided to Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines under the Defence Co-operation Programs (DCP) was included in the answer to your question on notice No. 333. (2) The only restriction placed on the use of military equipment provided under the DCP is that it not be sold or disposed of to a third country without the prior consent of the Australian Government. (3) The estimated values at 1983 prices of assistance under the DCP are as follows: 1 July 1972- 1 July 1976- 30 June 1976 30 June 1983 $m $m Indonesia 49.2 81.1 Malaysia 43.6 37.1 Singapore 10.0 8.0 The Philippines 0.3 6.5 Question No. 508 Mr Fisher asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: Has his attention been drawn to the Auditor-General's Report tabled in the House on 6 September, concerning criticism of the administration of the National Sports Centre, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory; if so, will he provide full details of the use of the facilities at the Centre, including (a) by the Australian Institute of Sport and (b) other organizations, for each of the years 1981-2 and 1982-3. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) Tables 1, 2 and 3 set out the use of the National Sports Centre by the Australian Institute of Sport for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983. (b) Tables 4 and 5 set out the use of the National Sports Centre by other organisations for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. Table 1 USAGE 1981-AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT TRAINING Total Times in use Number hours Sport Part. per week Mon. Tue. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Facilities Gymnastics 19 Women 15 1/2 6.00pm- 4.00pm- 6.00pm- 11.00am- National Indoor Sports 9.00pm 8.30pm 9.00pm 4.00pm Arena including conditioning gym Men 69 1/2 6.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- 10.00am- 11.00am 9.30am 9.30am 9.30am 9.30am 9.30am 5.00pm 4.00pm 12.00pm- 12.00pm- 12.00pm- 12.00pm- 12.00pm- 4.00pm 4.00pm 4.00pm 4.00pm 4.00pm 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 9.30pm 9.30pm 9.30pm 9.30pm 9.30pm Netball 18 19 6.45am- 6.45am- 6.45am- 6.45am- 6.45am- 2 outdoor netball courts, 8.45am 8.45am 8.45am 8.45am 8.45am conditioning gym, and Bruce TAFE indoor 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- court. 7.00pm 7.00pm 7.00pm Tennis 15 40 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- 6 outdoor tennis courts, 5.00pm 5.00pm 5.00pm 5.00pm 5.00pm conditioning gym and 2 indoor tennis courts during winter months on demand. Weightlifting 10 23 1/2 11.00am- 11.00am- 11.00am- 2.00pm- Weights and 12.30pm 12.30pm 12.30pm 5.00pm conditioning gym 4.00pm- 8.00pm Soccer 16 10 7.45am- 7.45am- 7.45am- 7.45am- 10.00am- 1 pitch warm-up oval 8.30am 8.30am 8.30am 8.30am 11.00am and conditioning gym 4.45pm- 4.45pm- 4.45pm- 4.45pm- 6.15pm 6.15pm 6.15pm 6.15pm Track and field 28 34 10.00am- 10.00am- 10.00am- 10.00am- 10.00am- 10.00am- 10.00am- National Athletics noon noon noon noon noon noon noon Stadium, conditioning gym, throwing circles 1.00pm- 1.00pm- 1.00pm- 1.00pm- 1.00pm- CCAE Bruce, TAFE oval 3.00pm 3.00pm 3.00pm 3.00pm 3.00pm 5.00pm- 5.00pm- 5.00pm- 5.00pm- 5.00pm- 7.00pm 7.00pm 7.00pm 7.00pm 7.00pm Basketball 20 11hr 20min 6.20pm- 6.20pm- 6.20pm- 6.20pm- National Indoor Sports 7.40pm 7.40pm 7.40pm 7.40pm Arena, conditioning gym 5.30pm- 5.30pm- 5.30pm- 5.30pm- 7.00pm 7.00pm 7.00pm 7.00pm Table 2 USAGE 1982-AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT TRAINING Total Times in use Number hours Sport Part. per week Mon. Tue. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Facilities Gymnastics 25 68 1/2 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- 8.30am- 8.30am- Jan-March-National 2.00pm 2.00pm 2.00pm 2.00pm 2.00pm 12.30pm 12.30pm Indoor Sports Centre 3.30pm- 3.30pm- 3.30pm- 3.30pm- 3.30pm- 1.30pm- 1.30pm- March-Warm-up hall, 9.00pm 9.00pm 9.00pm 9.00pm 9.00pm 5.30pm 5.30pm conditioning gym Netball 20 25 10.00am- 10.00am- 10.00am- 10.00am- 10.00am- Outdoor netball courts, 11.00am 11.00am 11.00am 11.00am 11.00am National Indoor Sports Centre, conditioning gym 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 8.00pm 8.00pm 8.00pm 8.00pm 8.00pm Tennis 16 37 1/2 8.30am- 8.30am- 8.30am- 8.30am- 8.30am- 6 outdoor tennis courts, 4.00pm 4.00pm 4.00pm 4.00pm 4.00pm 2 indoor tennis courts (winter months on demand), conditioning gym Weightlifting 12 27 11.00am- 11.00am- Weightlifting and 12.30pm 12.30pm conditioning gym 3.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 2.00pm- 7.00pm 7.00pm 7.00pm 8.00pm 8.00pm 5.00pm Soccer 18 9 7.30am- 7.30am- 7.30am- 7.30am- Warm-up oval, Bruce 8.15am 8.15am 8.15am 8.15am TAFE oval, National Indoor Sports Arena, 4.30pm- 4.30pm- 4.30pm- 4.30pm- conditioning gym 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm Track & field 28 49 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- 10.00am- 10.00am- National Athletics 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm noon noon Stadium, Bruce TAFE oval, CCAE throwing circle, conditioning gym Basketball 28 16 1/2 6.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- 8.30am- National Indoor Sports 8.00am 8.00am 8.00am 10.30am Arena, conditioning gym 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm Table 3 USAGE 1983-AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT TRAINING Total Times in use Number hours Sport Part. per week Mon. Tue. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Facilities Gymnastics men 13 23 9.00am- 9.00am- 9.00am- Gymnastics Training Hall 11.00am 11.00am 11.00am Indoor Arena 3.30pm- 3.30pm- 3.30pm- 3.30pm- 3.30pm- Conditioning Gymnasium 8.30pm 8.30pm 8.30pm 8.30pm 8.30pm women 14 27 1/2 7.30am- 7.30am- 7.30am- 7.30am- 7.30am- 8.00am 8.00am 8.00am 8.00am 8.00am 3.30pm- 4.30pm- 3.30pm- 3.30pm- 4.30pm- 12.00pm- 8.00pm 8.30pm 6.30pm 8.00pm 8.30pm 5.00pm Netball 18 18 1/2 6.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- Outdoor Netball Courts 7.30am 7.30am 7.30am 7.30am 7.30am Indoor Arena 4.30pm- 5.30pm- 4.30pm- 5.30pm- 4.30pm- Conditioning Gymnasium 7.30pm 9.00pm 7.30pm 9.00pm 7.30pm Tennis 18 32 8.30am- 8.30am- 8.30am- 8.30am- 8.30am- Outdoor Tennis Courts 11.30am 11.30am 11.30am 11.30am 11.30am Indoor Tennis Hall 3.00pm- 1.30pm- 1.30pm- 3.00pm- 1.30pm- Conditioning Gymnasium 5.30pm 5.30pm 5.30pm 5.30pm 5.30pm Weightlifting 12 28 11.00am- 11.00am- 11.00am- 11.00am- 11.00am- Weights & Conditioning 12.30pm 12.30pm 12.30pm 12.30pm 12.30pm Gymnasium 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 2.00pm- 7.30pm 7.30pm 7.30pm 7.30pm 7.30pm 5.00pm Soccer 17 11 1/2 7.00am- 7.00am- 7.00am- Warm up oval 7.30am 7.30am 7.30am Indoor Arena 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- Conditioning Gymnasium 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm Track & field 32 76 1/28.30am- 8.30am- 8.30am- 8.30am- 8.30am- 9.00am- 9.00am- Athletics Stadium, Throwing 9.00am 9.00am 9.00am 9.00am 9.00am 4.00pm 4.00pm Field, TAFE oval & conditioning gymnasium Basketball men 13 57 1/26.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- 6.30am- Indoor Areana 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm Conditioning Gymnasium women 13 16 6.15am- 6.15am- 6.15am- 9.00am- 7.45am 7.45am 7.45am 10.30am 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm 6.00pm Swimming men 17 17 5.40am- 5.40am- 5.40am- 8.30am- Swimming Hall 8.00am 8.00am 8.00am 11.00am (from 9 June 1983) 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 5.30pm- 6.40pm 8.00pm 6.40pm 8.00pm 6.40pm 6.30pm women 25 18 1/2 5.30am- 5.30am- 5.30am- 5.30am- 6.00am- 8.00am 8.00am 8.00am 8.00am 8.30am 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 4.00pm- 7.45pm 7.00pm 7.45pm 7.00pm 6.30pm 6.30pm Table 4 (a) TRAINING 1981-82 (NON-AIS) Athletics Amateur Athletic Union of Australia September 1981 ACT Amateur Athletics Association October 1981-March 1982 ACT Walkers' Club February 1982-May 1982 Veterans' Athletics Club December 1981-February 1982 Little Athletics Club November 1981-March 1982 Ryde/Hornsby Athletics Club May 1982 Basketball Canberra Cannons December 1981-June 1982 Canberra College of Advanced Education July 1981-November 1981 West Virginia USA July 1981 Partizan Yugoslavia July 1981 Hyundai Sth Korea January 1982 Chinese national team March 1982 Gymnastics ACT Gymnastics Association August 1981 New Zealand Youth April 1982 Canberra College of Advanced Education March 1982-June 1982 Australian Gymnastics Federation Youth April 1982 Netball ACT representative squad May 1982 NSW representative squad May 1982 New Zealand squad May 1982 All-England netball team February 1982 Soccer Academy of Soccer November 1981-June 1982 ACT Soccer Federation-U14 February 1982-June 1982 ACT Soccer Federation-U16 May 1982-June 1982 ACT Soccer Federation-Mens rep. May 1982 Canberra Arrows-Philips League February 1981-September1981 November 1981-June 1982 Canberra Arrows U19 February 1981-September 1981 November 1981-June 1982 Aust Soccer Federation Youth team September 1981-May 1982 Tennis ACT Lawn Tennis Assoc.-Men's squad January 1982-March 1982 ACT Lawn Tennis Assoc.-Junior squad June 1982 Australian Junior squad September 1981 USA Junior squad September 1981 Bruce TAFE College February 1982-June 1982 Weightlifting Australian Youth team August 1981-January 1982 Volleyball All Stars team July 1981-August 1981 Touch Football ACT Clubs December 1981-March 1982 Table 4 (b) USAGE PATTERNS-OUTDOOR TENNIS COURTS Persons 1981 July 30 August 25 September 10 October 150 November 194 December 40 1982 January 88 February 316 March 564 April 890 May 650 June 760 National and international sports seminars, and junior development training camps, have been held using facilities at the National Sports Centre, in conjunction with student accommodation at the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and other institutions in the National Capital. Seminars and Coaching Clinics* Confederation of Australian Sports Coaches Association National Pistol Shooting Association Australian U/19 Cricket Coaching Clinic Australian Institute of Sport International Swimming Clinic ACT Olympic Sports Association ACT Sports Medicine Federation ACT Teachers Federation ACT Track and Field Coaching Association Department of the Capital Territory Recreation Section *42 meetings and seminars attracted 8,946 participants and spectators. Table 4 (C) NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE EVENTS 1981-82 International Sports Events Soccer World Youth Cup Matches Spain v West Germany 8 October 1981 Egypt v Mexico 8 October 1981 Australia v West Germany 10 October 1981 Hungary v Canberra Arrows 25 January 1982 Basketball West Virginia USA v AIS 16 July 1981 Partizan Yugoslavia v Cannons 7 July 1981 Hyundai Korea v Cannons 29 January 1982 China v Cannons 29 March 1982 Tennis MacDonalds Cup Final AUS v USA 14-15 September 1981 Gymnastics Trans-Tasman Series (Juniors) 10 May 1982 Netball New Zealand v AIS 25 May 1982 National Sports Championships Soccer Philips Cup Final 20 September 1982 Under 19 Interstate Series 15-16 May 1982 Volley ball National Club Finals 11-12 July 1981 Touch Interstate Final Series 29 January-1 February 1982 Intercolleges of Advanced Education Finals (Basketball, Volleyball & Netball) 14-17 July 1981 Indoor Hockey Australia Day Interstate 29-30 January 1982 Badminton National Under 21 Finals 9-17 April 1982 Fencing National Under 20 Finals (incl. New Zealand, China) 29-30 January 1982 National Sports Leagues Soccer Philips National League 17 Matches National Youth League 32 Matches Basketball Converse National League 11 Matches South East Conference 8 Matches Volleyball National League 3 Matches Entertainment Events 'AIDA'-Canberre Opera Company 8-10 December 1981 'Superock 82'-Arthur Laing 24 January 1982 'Sesame Street Live'-Michael Edgley 24-28 March 1982 'George Benson'-Garry Van Egmond 6 March 1982 'Charley Pride'-Live act 4 April 1982 'Dr Hook'-Kevin Jacobsen 31 May 1982 'Cold Chisel'-Doug Hunter 18 June 1982 International Multicultural Dance Festival 3-4 October 1981 National Capital Ballroom Dancing Competition 7 March 1982 * During 1981-82, 26 performances attracted over 53,000 spectators and in excess of $420,000 gross takings. Table 5 (A) TRAINING 1982-83 (NON-AIS) Athletics Amateur Athletics Union of Australia December 1982-January 1983 ACT Amateur Athletics Association October 1982-March 1983 Veteran Athletics Club February-March 1983 RMC Athletics Club February-March 1983 Little Athletics Association October 1982-April 1983 Pacific School Games squad July-August 1982 Basketball Canberra Mazda Cannons December 1982-June 1983 Canberra College of Advanced Education July-October 1982 Sumitomo Metal, Japan January 1983 Downer Olympic Basketball Club July-October 1982 ACTABA Open Women's squad February-June 1983 ACTABE U16 Women's squad February 1983 New Zealand U20 team July 1982 Gymnastics ACT Gymnastics Club August 1982 Australian Gymnastics Team September 1982 Canberra College of Advanced Education July-September 1982 City YMCA August 1982 ACT Gymnastics Association March-June 1983 Netball Australian Netball team March 1983 Canberra College of Advanced Education July-September 1982 Soccer Canberra Arrows July-December 1982 February-June 1983 Arrows Youth Team July-November 1982 February-June 1983 Academy of Soccer July 1982-June 1983 ACT Soccer Federation U15 January-June 1983 ACT Soccer Federation U18 February-June 1983 New Zealand U13 Team August 1982 Tennis ACT Tennis Association Junior squad January-June 1983 ACT Junior Tennis Club July 1982-June 1983 Belconnen Apex Social Club December 1982-March 1983 Bruce TAFE College February-June 1983 Volleyball Canberra Comets January-June 1983 National Training camp September 1982 Table 5 (B) NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE EVENTS 1982-83 International Sports Events Athletics Australia Day international meeting 30 January 1983 Basketball New Zealand U20's v AIS 28 July 1982 Coca Cola Mini Series, visiting team Sumitomo Metal (Japan) 28-30 January 1983 Gymnastics Pacific Alliance Competition 20 October 1982 Showjumping Dunhill International Indoor Showjumping 9 October 1982 National Sports Championships Athletics Shell School Olympics 21 November 1982 Little Athletics Interstate Championships 3 April 1983 Basketball Australian U18 Men's Championships 30 August-4 September 1982 Badminton ACT Championships 21 & 22 May 1983 Gymnastics State Titles 3 & 4 July 1982 Hockey Interstate Indoor Hockey Championships 29-31 January 1983 Soccer Interstate Primary School Championships 6 August 1982 Interstate Secondary School Championships 19 August 1982 Australian U18 Men's Championships 21 & 22 May 1983 National Sports Leagues Basketball National Basketball League 13 games South Eastern Conference League 9 games Women's Basketball League 9 games Soccer National Soccer League 8 games National Youth League 10 games Entertainment Events 'Split Enz' Australian Concert Entertainment 16 July 1982 'Australian Crawl' Frontier Touring Co. 25 August 1982 'Madness' Frontier Touring Co. 21 October 1982 'Joe Cocker' Kevin Jacobsen 6 November 1982 'Hot Chocolate' Nick Televantos 10 November 1982 'Iron Maiden' Australian Concert Entertainment 20 November 1982 'Superrock' 83' Liveact 23 January 1983 'Cliff Richard' Smith Barnett Productions 23 & 24 February 1983 'Dire Straits' Garry Van Egmond 15 March 1983 'Canberra Salutes the Stars' 18 March 1983 'Peter Tosh' Afrika Vibrations 27 March 1983 'The World's Greatest Circus Spectacular' Michael Edgley International 28 April-3 May 1983 Arcadia High School Apache Marching Band 8 July 1982 Other Latvian Sports Festival 28-31 December 1982 Tooheys Country Cricket Challenge 28 October 1982 Civic Permanent Tennis Challenge Cup 16 & 17 November 1982 National Newspaper Plane Competition 13 March 1983 Table 5 (C) NATIONAL SPORTS CENTRE 1982-83 USAGE PATTERNS Total spectators Entertainment Indoor 72,460 Outdoor 7,000 79,460 National Championships Indoor 10,670 Outdoor 20,317 30,987 Sports Indoor 40,910 Outdoor 58,869 99,779 Australia Day Sports Carnival 17,322 Seminars 5,721 School tours 3,186 Total 236,455 Non Institute training-37,179 hours (not including tennis) TENNIS COURTS 1982-83 USAGE PATTERN Persons/hr July 644 August 528 September 324 October 544 November 504 December 316 January 135 February 756 March 1,291 April 2,475 May 1,155 June 2,140 Total *10,812 * This compares with the 1981-82 total of 3,717 hours for the 6 outdoor courts and reflects increased use following the opening of 4 additional indoor courts in 1983. Coaching Clinics and Seminars AAUA Oceania Advanced Coaching Clinic Level II Soccer coaches Clinic Australian Sports Medicine Federation ACT Sports Medicine First Aid Course Australia Day Sports Carnival Committee ACT Track and Field Coaching Association DCT Level I Sports Administration Course Canberra Times Marathon Man Seminars Question No. 645 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 October 1983 : (1) Has Telecom Australia considered introducing a smart card system into Australia for use in pay telephones. (2) If so, (a) has it given consideration to extending their use to electronic banking and shopping and (b) does this provide a potential conflict with videotex. (3) Is it a fact that the introduction of the smart card system could eliminate thefts from coin telephone boxes, and could subsequently reduce costly vandalism to public telephone booths. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Telecom has no plans at this stage to introduce a smart card system for public telephones. It is, however, closely monitoring the overseas development and implementation of these systems. (2) (a) No. (b) Not applicable. (3) Yes, to the extent that coins would no longer be required to make a call. Vandalism to booths is, however, quite often independent of attempts to rob coin telephone instruments. Question No. 648 Mr Lloyd asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: What are (a) the names of (i) the 21 members of the National Media Liaison Service and (ii) the 12 members of the Ministerial Media Group, (b) their previous employment records and (c) their (A) salaries (B) travel and (C) other allowances. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (b) and (c) Details as at 15 November 1983 are listed in the following table: Previous employment Current Immediately salary previous Organisation Name Classification range position or employer $p.a. (i) National Media Liaison Service Central Office Mr G. Scully *Head 42,137 Journalist Australian Broadcasting Corporation Mr G. Sorby *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Journalist News Corporation Mr J. Ford *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Media Officer Department of Transport Ms P. Steele *Research Officer 18,388-24,490 Tutor/lecturer in political science University of Melbourne Ms R. Zibar Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Steno-secretary Australian Institution of Aboriginal Studies Ms E. Raffaele Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Assistant to Personal Secretary Parliamentary Library Mr V. S. Pham Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 14,852-15,478 Clerical Assistant Government Information Unit State Representation Mr J. F. Shaw *Journalist, Grade A2 (New South Wales 31,926 Journalist Staff of the Hon. Lionel Bowen, M.P. Ms S. Brooke Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Secretary/typist Government Information Unit Mr I. Mackay *Journalist, Grade A2 (Victoria) 31,926 Consultant Self-employed Ms E. Lewis Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Assistant to National Secretary Australian Post-Tel Institute Mr C. Palmer *Journalist, Grade A2 (Queensland) 31,926 Journalist Australian Broadcasting Corporation Ms B. M. Hatcher Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Secretary National Broadcasting Commission (New Guinea) Mr T. McEwan *Journalist, Grade A2 (South Australia) 31,926 Journalist Self-employed Ms M. Holder Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Secretary/typist Government Information Unit Mr N. Taylor *Journalist, Grade A2 (Western Australia) 31,926 Journalist W. A. Newspapers Ltd Mrs C. Dargie Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Secretary/typist Government Information Unit Mr P. Dwyer *Journalist, Grade A2 (Tasmania) 31,926 Journalist The Australian Ms M. A. Gore Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Secretary/typist Government Information Unit Mr R. Creswick *Journalist, Grade A1 (Northern Territory 28,745-29,830 Journalist Australian Broadcasting Corporation Ms R. Smith Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Assistant to Public Relations Manager Northern Territory Electricity Commission Mr J. Stanaway *Journalist, Grade A1 (North Queensland) 28,745-29,830 Journalist Mirror Newspaper (Brisbane) (ii) Ministerial Media Group Mr A. L. Ferguson *Director (Journalist, Grade A3) 34,044 Press Secretary Staff of Senator the Hon. John Button Mr D. O'Reilly *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Press Secretary N.S.W. Minister for Sport Mr R. Hill *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Press Attache Australian Information Service Mr D. Atkins *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Research Assistant Staff of Senator N. Bolkus Ms S. Fitzell *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Television Producer Channel 10, Sydney Mr J. Rankin *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Journalist Self-employed Mr B. Castellari *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Journalist Department of Communications Mr S. O'Connor *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Journalist Courier Mail Ms M. Scholfield *Journalist, Grade A2 31,926 Journalist ATN Channel 7 Ms L. Hornsey *Journalist, Grade A1 28,745-29,830 Research Assistant Staff of Senator J. Coates Ms J. McDonald *Assistant Private Secretary 18,388-24,490 Media Officer Australian Labor Party (Queensland) Ms J. Millar Secretary/typist 14,675-17,168 Sub-editor Financial Review *Ministerial Staff allowance of $7,347 per annum, in addition to salary, is payable to occupants of these positions. Overtime is not payable. Other Allowances-As at 15 November 1983-In accordance with Public Service Board Determination No. 10 of 1983, Mr Scully receives a temporary accommodation allowance which is currently $59 per week. In accordance with Public Service Board Determination No. 10 of 1983, the Northern Territory Representative, Mr Creswick, and his Office Assistant, Ms Smith, receive an annual District Allowance, currently $1,700 and $920, respectively. Travelling Allowance-As Head of the National Media Liaison Service, Mr Scully is paid travelling allowance at Public Service Second Division Officer rates when travelling on official duty. All other staff referred to above are paid travelling allowance at Public Service Third Division rates. Current rates are: Second Division-Capital cities $96.00 per day; Elsewhere $66 .00 per day. Third Division-Capital cities $73.20 per day; Elsewhere $55.10 per day. Question No. 649 Mr Lloyd asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: (1) On what grounds is Mr Gary Scully, head of the National Media Liaison Service, paid a salary and allowances of over $47,000. (2) What are his conditions of employment. (3) Has he been temporarily seconded from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or has he been appointed on a permanent basis. (4) Is he able to say what arrangements have been made for his future employment with the ABC. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Public Service Board set the salary of the Head of the National Media Liaison Service after consideration of the duties and responsibilities of the position. The current salary (as at 15 November 1983) is $42,137 per annum. In addition, the position attracts ministerial staff allowance of $7,347 per annum in lieu of overtime and in recognition of other special features of the position . (2) Mr Garry Scully is engaged as a temporary employee under the Public Service Act 1922. His employment is on the same basis as that of other ministerial staff , ie normal Public Service conditions apply, but with certain exceptions reflect the specific nature of employment outside the career service framework. (3) Mr Scully has been granted leave without pay by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-ABC-for an initial period of three years. (4) I understand that the ABC has agreed to re-employ Mr Scully, should he choose to return to the ABC at any time within three years of the commencement of his leave without pay. Question No. 654 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: (1) What amount of freight have Australian National Railways and the Australian National Line carried for the Northern Territory Government and its statutory authorities in each of the years 1978-79 to 1982-83. (2) What percentage of the total freight carried in the Northern Territory was carried for the Northern Territory Government and its statutory authorities in each of those years. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australian National Line-ANL-has advised that the majority of cargo carried is consigned on a full container load basis and ANL as shipowners are unable to determine what percentage is destined for the Northern Territory Government. Australian National-AN-has similar difficulties separating out the information. However, figures giving total sea freight loaded and discharged at Northern Territory ports (a) follow: Loaded Discharged ('000 tonnes) ('000 tonnes) Total Inter- Inter- ('000 Year Coastal national Coastal national tonnes) 1978-79 522 4,770 148 1,072 6,512 1979-80 597 4,909 147 1,242 6,895 1980-81 484 4,524 207 1,350 6,565 1981-82 364 3,689 134 1,109 5,296 1982-83 Figures not yet available (a) Source: Port Authority Cargo Movements. AN has provided the following information on rail freight carried between Adelaide and the Northern Territory (a) Northbound Southbound Total Year ('000 tonnes) ('000 tonnes) ('000 tonnes) 1978-79 113 37 150 1979-80 142 41 183 1980-81 219 72 291 1981-82 271 56 327 1982-83 (b) 379 (a) All figures are approximates and exclude livestock. (b) 1982-83 figures are estimates. (2) These figures are unavailable as records are not readily able to be broken down to ascertain goods carried specificially for the Northern Territory Government and its statutory authorities. Question No. 702 Dr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in The Australian of 1 November 1983, page 5, stating that a television documentary team found high cancer and leukemia incidence in the Windscale region, United Kingdom, and plutonium dust was found 65 kilometres from the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Windscale. (2) Is he able to substantiate a rebuttal by British Nuclear Fuels which claims that a 9 kilogram dosage per year of the dust component in its radioactive pollution would be needed to exceed its safety limit. (3) Does this overlook the occurrence of 'hot spots' or high plutonium concentration particles in inhaled dust and in tissue deposition, which could reduce the hazardous dose by several orders of magnitude. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The allegations raised in the television program are being investigated by the UK Government. The Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 2 November 1983 that Sir Douglas Black, a former President of the Royal College of Physicians would be conducting an inquiry into an apparently high incidence of cancer amongst children in the neighbourhood of Sellafield (formerly Windscale). In addition, the National Radiological Protection Board was working closely with Oxford University on studies into the incidence of leukemia clusters and other cancers. It would be premature to comment on the allegations until these inquiries are completed and the results made available. (3) I am advised that the possible influence of 'hot spots' of insoluble radioactive particules deposited in pulmonary tissues was reviewed by the United States Committeee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation-BEIR Committee -which concluded that 'The evidence is still insufficient to determine whether aggregates of radioactivity that remain localised in specific regions of the lungs give a greater or smaller risk of lung cancer per average lung dose than uniformly deposited radiation. Preliminary experimental data indicate that a small fraction of inhaled insoluble particles may remain in the bronchial epithelial layer for long periods, but the significance of this local exposure on lung cancer risk is still uncertain. (BEIR III, 1980; page 326). Mr Carlton asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 November 1983: Is he taking steps to compensate Mr R Slaney of P.O. Box 172, Geelong, Victoria , 3220, who has the business name 'Medicare-Doctors' After Hours Service' registered in his name under the Victorian Business Names Act, for damages suffered by Mr Slaney from the use of the name 'Medicare' by the Government; if so, what are the steps he is taking. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. I refer to Section 41C (9) of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 which states: (9) ''No action or proceeding, whether criminal or civil lies against the Commonwealth or the Commission for or in relation to the use by the Commonwealth or the Commission of the name 'Medicare' or of an official 'Medicare' symbol.'' Question No. 751 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to (a) allegations in the United Nations that chemical weapons have been used by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and by Vietnam in Laos and Kampuchea and (b) reports that there have been 200 chemical warfare attacks in Laos, and over 100 in Kampuchea; if so, what credence does the Government give to the reports. (2) What (a) support is the Government giving to efforts being made for UN investigators to have access to Laos, Kampuchea and Afghanistan and (b) action has been taken to ensure the success of the UN investigations. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 (a) and (b) yes. For some time now Australian experts have been examining evidence from a number of sources of possible use of chemical weapons in Indo- China in recent years. They accept that some form of chemical agents have been used there by Laotian and Vietnamese forces but are not prepared to commit themselves on the nature of the chemical agent or agents used. 2 (a) and (b). The group of experts appointed by the UN Secretary General pursuant to United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 35/144C of 12 December 1980 and 36/96C of 9 December 1981 to investigate reports on the alleged use of chemical weapons presented its report to the Secretary General on 26 November 1982. The question of access by the group to Laos, Cambodia and Afghanistan and of government action to ensure the success of the investigations does not therefore currently arise. Australia considers that there is a need for a continued effort on the part of the international community to ensure that all reports of chemical warfare are promptly investigated. Australia supports the 1982 United Nations General Assembly resolution to this effect-UNGA Resolution 37/98D of 13 December 1982- Provisional Procedures to Uphold the Authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol-and has nominated the Defence Department's Materials Research Laboratories for inclusion in the list of laboratories and experts being compiled by the Secretary General pursuant to this resolution to assist him in the investigation of such reports. Australia co-sponsored another resolution at the 1982 UN General Assembly calling for the strict observance by all states of the principles and objectives of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use in war of chemical and bacteriological methods of warfare. (UNGA Resolution 37/ 98E of 13 December 1982). The Government considers that the international community must continue to work on the elaboration of an effective and verifiable international convention outlawing chemical weapons. Australia is actively participating in the consideration of such a chemical weapons convention in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. Question No. 762 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There were no alternative mailing arrangements introduced by my Department during the Canberra mail strike. The exchange of official correspondence to and from overseas missions was not unduly affected by the mail strike. However, the flow of some official and most personal mail addressed to officers serving overseas was affected. Accordingly, staff were informed in the Department's weekly Management Services Bulletin that the continuing mail strike was the reason for delays in receipt of mail and it was left to individual officers to make any necessary alternative arrangements. There were no identifiable increases in costs incurred by my Department during the mail strike. Question No. 767 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the cost in each case. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No alternative mailing arrangements were made by my Department and its agencies during the recent mail strike in Canberra. Use was made of existing communication methods which include telephone, telex, facsimile transmission and the Government's period contract for air and road freight services. Extra costs may have been involved but it is not possible to identify and separate these from normal operating costs for these services. Question No. 777 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No alternative mailing arrangements were introduced by either the Department of Home Affairs and Environment or any of the statutory authorities within the portfolio. On the other hand there was some increase in the use of existing courier services. The estimated extra cost was: $ (a) Department of Home Affairs and Environment 1,600 (b) Australian Film and Television School 30 (c) Office of the Supervising Scientist 30 (d) Australian Bicentennial Authority 40 (e) Australian National Gallery 210 Question No. 810 Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice , on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance, are available from the Minister's Department, to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements have to be met to qualify, for each form of assistance. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Home Affairs and Environment provides no direct financial or technical assistance specifically to private business. However advice concerning the responsibilities of the Department is freely available on request . (2) General information on the Department's activities can be obtained from the Department's Information Section. More specific advice is available from the relevant funcitional areas of the Department. Question No. 826 Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: (1) Does he envisage a role for the Naval Technical Services Section of the Department of Defence in (a) design and (b) construction of the FFG-type vessels proposed for the Williamstown Naval Dockyard; if so, what are the details. (2) If no role is envisaged, what are the reasons. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 (a) Naval Technical Services have been involved in the design definition for the two FFG's to be built at Williamstown. They are to be based on the fourth vessel built for Australia in the United States, HMAS Darwin. Australian Mulloka Sonar will be fitted in lieu of the AN SQ-56 sonar. Naval Technical Services will maintain their association with the project through continuing design functions: (1) preparation of design changes consquent upon the Mulloka fit (2) oversighting specifications and the vetting and issue of working drawings to Williamstown Naval Dockyard (3) investigating the suitability of Australian substitutes for certain equipments and materials (4) review of proposed class design changes (5) design authority for equipments built under licence in Australia such as the 76 millimetre gun and propeller hubs and shafts. (b) It is envisaged that Naval Technical Services will continue their close involvement with the Australian frigate construction program through its entirety. Production aspects are the responsibility of the Director General Naval Production. (2) The foregoing reply negates this question. Question No. 381 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Have United Nations organs and members agreed that the failure of resort to peaceful means of settling international disputes, including agreement on effectively confirmed total disarmament, is due to lack of political will, goodwill and good faith; if so, can he say whether this lack of will lies partly in governments and partly in their citizens who prefer to follow governments in the use of force for short term national interests rather than make short term concessions internationally for long term survival and transnational prosperity. (2) Will the Government devote information and education to try to initiate correction of this apathy before it kills everything and everyone. (3) Has the Government acknowledged that most peoples want a peaceful rule of international law enforceable by their chosen international representatives more than they want national supremacy, as shown by (a) public opinion polls and (b) the fact that our allies, enemies and putative enemies during, between and since 2 world wars have changed sides on average more than twice; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The Government is aware that there are frequently expressions of concern in the United Nations at the lack of political will, goodwill and good faith in seeking peaceful means of settling international disputes and in obtaining agreement on disarmament issues. The Government shares this concern. In the ''Conclusions'' of the United Nations General Assembly Second Special Session on Disarmament, the Assembly noted: ''In short, since the adoption of the Final Document (of the first Special Session on Disarmament) in 1978, there has been no significant progress in the field of arms limitation and disarmament and the seriousness of the situation has increased. The Final Document stated that disarmament, relaxation of international tension , respect for the right to self-determination and national independence, the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the strengthening of international peace and security are directly related to each other. Progress in any of these spheres has a beneficial effect on others. The past four years have witnessed increasing recourse to the use or threat of use of force against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, military intervention, occupation, annexation and interference in the internal affairs of States and denial of the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial or foreign domination. The period has also witnessed other actions by States contrary to the Final Document. The consequent tensions and confrontations have retarded progress in disarmament and have in turn been aggravated by the failure to make significant progress towards disarmament.'' 2. The Government supports the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign, the aim of which is to inform, educate and to generate public understanding and support for the objectives of the United Nations in the field of disarmament. On 28 August 1983 I announced that Australia will make voluntary contributions totalling $50,000 to the World Disarmament Campaign and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, in addition to Australia's contribution to the regular budget of the United Nations. 3. I agree that there is an overwhelming desire for peace on the part of peoples around the world. However, peaceful rule of international law enforceable by chosen international representatives implies some form of world government, which is not in early prospect. The Government does not consider that this would be more likely to guarantee international peace than the Charter of the United Nations which already provides for the peaceful regulation of international affairs. Any attempt to launch any form of world government or to promote an alternative to the United Nations would add to rather than reduce the divisions between States. Question No. 582 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Have any arrangements been made to ensure that a specific proportion of the funds provided to the States under the Commonwealth Employment Program are spent in alleviating Aboriginal unemployment; if so, what amount or what proportion. (2) How many Aborigines have been employed to date under the program. (3) What is the estimated number of Aborigines to be employed under the program . Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Insofar as the States and Territories are concerned, no specific proportion of the $250m provided under the Community Employment Program (CEP) for 1983-84 has been set aside to alleviate Aboriginal unemployment. In this component of the Program, however, arrangements have been made to ensure that Aboriginals are major beneficiaries. The Aboriginal community is represented on the CEP Consultative Committee in each State and Territory by a nominee of the National Aboriginal Conference. These Committees are responsible for assessing project applications. Aboriginals have been designated in the guidelines for the Program as a priority target group. Information is being provided to Consultative Committees to ensure that Aboriginal projects receive an equitable share of the funds that are being provided. The operational instructions to the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) also identify Aboriginals as a target group and direct the CES to give priority in referring Aboriginals to any vacancies created under the CEP. In the Commonwealth component of the CEP, under which an additional $50m has been provided for projects to be run by Commonwealth Departments and Authorities during 1983-84, an amount of $7m has been set aside specifically for Aboriginal projects. The individual projects to be approved will be agreed between myself and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. (2) Information relating to the number of Aboriginals employed on the Program is not yet available. However statistics on this will be available in due course . (3) No estimates have been made in relation to the allocation of the $250m to be provided to States and Territories. 500 Aboriginals are expected to be employed on projects funded from the $7m available for Aboriginal projects through Commonwealth Departments and Authorities. A further 180 positions have also been earmarked for Aboriginals on other approved projects which are to be sponsored by Commonwealth Departments and Authorities. Question No. 806 Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance are available from the Minister's Department, to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements have to be met to qualify, for each form of assistance. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Department of Housing and Construction has no general program of financial assistance to private business. Through the Grants-in-Aid Program, partial funding is provided to the Australian Fire Protection Association for the promotion of fire safety requirements and community awareness. (b) indirect assistance is provided to private businesses in the form of advice on research, supply and contract procedures; and technical information on the application of Australian standards. Engineering expertise is made available to Computer Aided Design Pty Ltd, a non -profit association which provides information to private engineering and architectural organisations, and to package overseas consultancy projects undertaken by Australian private consultants and funded by such organisations as the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation and the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Indirect assistance is also provided through the Experimental Building Station (EBS) and the Central Investigation and Research Laboratory ( CIRL) by providing research information through their technical publications. Direct verbal advice is available from EBS, however, a charge is made for advice requiring a significant amount of EBS work. Indirect assistance from CIRL is provided through its work with the Standards Association of Australia and the National Association of Testing Authorities Australia. Access to DHC computerised costing information is also provided to private consulting firms for quantity surveying. (c) Information brochures are provided to real estate agents, financial institutions and to builders on various forms of housing assistance schemes. 2 (a) General inquiries: Central Office (062) 436111, P.O. Box 111, Dickson 2602; Experimental Building Station: (02) 8882777; Central Investigation and Research laboratory: (03) 642561. (b) No specified requirements for private businesses. Question No. 817 Mr Lindsay asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: (1) Are commanding officers of major Australian military units provided with an annual allowance to extend hospitality to official visitors; if so, (a) what is the basis of the allowance, (b) is it required to cover hospitality for official visitors such as the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, parliamentary committees and non-parliamentary committees and (c) is it adequate to cover this hospitality. (2) Are funds for the provision of hospitality to official visitors normally a charge against the officers mess fund and thus paid for by the officers of the mess. (3) It is a fact that commanding officers often meet a significant proportion of the costs of hospitality from their own salaries. (4) On what conditions is expenditure for official entertainment recoverable. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Funds for entertainment of official visitors are provided to all major Service Commands. Not all commanding officers of units have access to these funds. (a) The basis of the allowance is contained in the Financial Regulations applicable to the Services, which recognise the responsibility of Service Commanders to extend hospitality to persons who facilitate in a substantial way the conduct of Defence business either by advice or service, vocational or business interests, or by their presence at official ceremonies. This does not include representatives of firms bidding for, or interested in, Defence contracts or procurement. The Command Entertainment Allowance Fund, for each Service, is currently set at $10,000 per year, the level approved by the Minister for Defence in September 1980. (b) Yes. (c) Owing to upward movement in the Consumer Price Index since the level of the Fund was established at $10,000, the amount available is increasingly inadequate to meet all requirements. The level of the Fund is currently under review. (2) Provision of hospitality to official visitors in Officers' Messes is initially charged against Mess funds, which seek reimbursement-at prescribed rates-from an official Mess Reimbursement Fund. Subject to availability of funds from Budget provisions for official entertainment in Messes, the individual Mess Funds may be reimbursed costs incurred up to the rates allowed: those rates are currently under review. Where the costs of hospitality exceed the rates allowed, or the funds from Budget provisions for official entertainment in Messes have been exhausted, Mess funds i.e., the Mess members, normally carry the shortfall. (3) Some commanding officers meet the cost of hospitality which exceeds the level of the available allowances. (4) Expenditure to the level of the funds available is recoverable if it falls within the guidelines of answer (2) above.