Wednesday, 7 March 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 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. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cadman,Mrs Darling,Mr Hawker,Mr Milton and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown and Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth their concern regarding the proposed reduction in per capita grants to non- government schools in 1984 in conformity with the Commonwealth Government Guidelines for 1984 to be enacted within the State Grants (Schools) Act to be presented to Parliament later in 1983. Your petitioners express their deep concern about these arbitrary and discriminatory changes to Commonwealth Government funding of the educational rights of children in Australia and therefore respectfully request that:- (1) funding to all non-government schools be maintained at at least the levels in real terms per student as were in existence at the commencement of the 1983 academic year pending a full review of the Guidelines by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, and (2) that such review by the Commonwealth Schools Commission include consultation with representatives of the parents of students attending non- government schools, such representation to fairly represent the contribution made by the non-government schools to the overall education system in Australia. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Australia, Division of Dawson, shows- that Australia is basically a Christian nation-as shown by figures from the last census. that the Queen of Australia is recognised as head of Australia's Parliamentary System. that no mandate has been sought from or given by the Australian people to alter our Oath of Allegiance, the proposal to amend the Citizenship Act not being publicised prior to the last Federal election. that removal of references to God and the Queen is the first small significant step towards Republicanism. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government does not remove references to God and the Queen from our Oath of Allegiance and that it be allowed to remain unchanged. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: Whereas the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has sat in Launceston, Tasmania, and taken evidence on the problem of aircraft noise over that city, and Whereas that evidence has established that a prima facie case does exist on the matter of encroaching aircraft noise on the lives of people living under the existing takeoff flight paths; Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Request the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to bring down an interim report on the matter of aircraft noise at Launceston, Tasmania as a matter of urgency, as; (a) The situation is becoming worse and, with the expected introduction of a Boeing 727 on the night freight services, the position will become intolerable for those living under the northerly takeoff flight path. (b) There will be more jet aircraft flights at night than experienced in the day. (c) That the present measures planned by the Department of Aviation to alleviate the noise are totally inadequate and fail to recognise the basic causes of the problem. (d) The increasing noise problem affects the well being of the patients in five major hospitals, the aged in five aged home complexes and children in fourteen major schools and colleges, all under the mandatory flight path as laid down by the Department of Aviation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-west region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. Note that such a proposal will result in the destruction of the historic village of Pitt Town, Longneck wildlife reserve, significant aboriginal relics and the historic Scheyville camp and will irreversibly alter the character of the five Macquarie towns. 3. Consider the resulting intolerable pollution of the Hawkesbury river. 4. Note that approximately 2000 properties will be resumed, displacing over 5000 residents. 5. Consider the detrimental effects of noise, air and vehicular pollution on many thousands of residents in the surrounding districts of Hawkesbury, Baulkham Hills, Hornsby Shires, Blacktown and Penrith cities. 6. Give immediate consideration to finding a more suitable alternative site. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1 per cent of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other States. Without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and the State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80.00 per day in the other states. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled, should- Use its influence with Government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $40 per day) against insured Queenslanders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, parents and teachers working for and in the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: We support the Federal Government's determination to restore the community's confidence in public education. We support the Federal Government's opposition to base grants to all non government schools (a) by reducing funds to those schools already operating above community standards and (b) funding other schools according to need. We support the Federal Government's policy of negotiations and planning with State/Territory Governments regarding joint programs for improvements in Government schools in the next decade. 1. We ask that the Federal Government increase recurrent funding for Government schools as promised. 2. We ask that the Federal Government provide promised funding for special programs to assist primary children with learning difficulties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that: (a) Too much Government Aid is given to serve Australia's Foreign Policy interests rather than to help the poor. (b) The needs and wishes of the poor are often ignored when projects are being selected and implemented. (c) Projects are often selected and designed to suit what Australia can provide rather than what the poor really need. (d) Technical imputs and expertise are emphasised at the expenses of social factors. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government should: (1) Reorient its aid program so that its principal aim is to eliminate chronic proverty in our region. (2) Choose recipient countries systematically on the basis of (a) Need of the people; (b) Likelihood of aid reaching the poorest and (c) Australia's Historical links and geographical position. (3) Choose types of aid systematically on the basis of whether the Recipient government has the commitment and ability to help the poorest in that country. by Mr Griffiths. To The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm; (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs; (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices; (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals; (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. 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 Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia New South Wales respectfully showeth: The undersigned residents feel that it has become urgent and that we have Telephones connected due to: many of us having small children; medical reasons; schools being unable to contact parents in an emergency; those families operating a business unable to have an after hours phone contact; unable to contact tradespersons; unable to seek medical advice in an emergency; unable to be advised of death and illness of non-local relatives. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray for the improvement of telephone services in regional areas. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into the 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 nor legislate 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposal of Telecom Australia to close the Manual Assistance Centre at Parkes will severely disadvantage the Parkes community by- 1. The loss of current employment and future employment opportunities and consequent loss of income to the district 2. The loss of a local 24 hour emergency service 3. The loss of local knowledge of telephonists being available to telephone users when traffic is routed to an exchange anywhere in the State 4. The loss of a local and personalised service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that those of the Honourable House will call on the Government to halt the closure pending a full and open inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the closure on this district, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Government has an immigration policy emphasising family reunion. However, the humanitarian motivations of the family reunion policy are lost if an ''assurance of support'' for aged relatives forces families into traumatic reunions. Therefore we urge that 1. Assurances of support should be abolished and all previous agreements declared null and void. 2. That permanent residence status should guarantee automatic right to all pensions and benefits providing applicants meet all other eligibility criteria. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr West. Petition to the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned electors for the Commonwealth of Australia showeth that we pray that any suggestion to provide free travel for de facto wives of M.P.s will be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% 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 Gorman and Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled- The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Patersons Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Patersons Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. 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 decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory governments which will ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. Petitions received. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the report of the inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories (the Ross report) has recommended that the Armed Forces Food Science Establishment, Scottsdale, Tasmania should be marked for eventual closure; (2) recognises- (a) the essential functions of the establishment in providing, inter alia, advice and research into food needs as well as the development of ration packs, for the armed services, particularly the Army; and (b) the important contribution that the establishment makes to the economy of north-east Tasmania; and (3) calls on the government to reject the report's recommendation without delay and to confirm the continued operations of the establishment in Scottsdale. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes with satisfaction the continuing emphasis on upgrading public transport services in New South Wales following the announcement by Premier Wran on 6 March 1984 that six additional XPT trains worth $70m and 50 additional suburban carriages worth $400m would be brought into service. Mr HICKS(Riverina) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the slow progress being made in negotiations between the Federal and New South Wales governments in obtaining a formula which will provide royalty and taxation relief for the Broken Hill mining companies; (2) reminds the Parliament of the importance of this decision to the future of Broken Hill; and (3) calls on the Federal and New South Wales governments to make their intentions on this matter clear to the people of Broken Hill before the New South Wales State election on 24 March 1984. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) will second: That this House- (1) notes with pleasure that the Moss Vale District Agricultural, Horticultural and Industrial Society centenary show will be held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1984; (2) congratulates the Moss Vale District Agricultural, Horticultural and Industrial Society on reaching its centenary and further congratulates the Moss Vale and District Centenary Show Committee; and (3) notes with pleasure the contribution the Society has made to the Moss Vale area during the past 100 years, and wishes the Society well for the coming century. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) will second: That this House- (1) deplores the fact that Australia now has its own Hawke- gate tapes scandal; and (2) calls upon the Prime Minister to specifically admit that he deliberately chose not to listen to the tapes because he knew that it was likely that he would recognise several of the voices as being those of long standing ALP supporters including certain persons who actively assisted him in his bid to usurp the leadership of the Party in 1983. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes recent record levels of capital inflow indicating confidence in the Australian economy and the Australian Government's economic policies; (2) views with concern recent increases in prime interest rates; and (3) urges financial institutions to show restraint in interest rate increases as part of the process of creating a sound climate for the debate of the Martin report. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) will second: That this House condemns the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Prime Minister and officials of the Builders Labourers Federation for the lack of action in seeking a settlement of the site allowance dispute at the new Parliament House construction site. Mr Gear having given notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is obvious there is not too much laryngitis around this morning. On the other hand, I have to rule the notice of motion out of order as being frivolous. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) affirms its conviction that average families are $15 a week worse off after one year of ALP Government; (2) notes that over 300,000 taxpayers are for the first time paying 46 per cent of their wages in tax; and (3) calls on the Prime Minister to make good his broken promise of compensatory tax cuts in the next Budget. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) will second: That this House is of the opinion that the adjournment debates of the House should be broadcast. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of siting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the shortsighted policies of the Liberal and National Parties in NSW following the recent announcements to encourage private enterprise to assume control of power generation in the State, and (2) rejects the Liberal-National Party policy of closing down the important Mount Piper Power Station Project near Lithgow, NSW. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice, that on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Condemns the Minister for Health for- (a) his inept handling of the introduction of Medicare; (b) the dictatorial responses to difficulties raised by health professionals; (c) being the first Minister to cause a strike by service providers, and (d) his impractical, philosophical commitment to socialised medicine, and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to relieve the Minister for Health of his portfolio. Ms McHUGH(Phillip) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) Congratulates Randwick Boys' High School on the outstanding success of its students in the Higher School certificate examinations, evidenced again in 1983, and (2) supports the statement by the school Principal, Mr Bernie Gallagher, that these results show how the Government school system can compete successfully with the private school system. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered in Committee at a later hour this day . [COGNATE BILLS: FRESH VEGETABLES (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1984CANNED AND FROZEN VEGETABLES (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1984CANNED AND FROZEN VEGETABLES (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1984HONEY (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1984HONEY (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1984APPLE AND PEAR LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984DRIED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 ] Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(10.13) —In this cognate debate I wish to concentrate my remarks on the Fresh Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984. The ultimate purpose of this Bill and its related measures is the recoupment of expenses incurred in the inspection for export of fresh fruit and vegetables. On the face of it, in principle the recovery of 50 per cent of costs has much to recommend it. No government service is ultimately free as costs eventually have to be met by the taxpayer. The users of a service should, where practicable, make a contribution. On the other hand, some industries feel that it is fair for the Government to meet inspection charges in lieu of providing other support. However, the principle of the Bill is not in dispute. What I do dispute very strongly is the intention of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), as stated in this place last week, to bring these charges into effect on 1 April. Such a move will have the most adverse consequences for the export vegetable and fruit growers of Australia and more particularly the growers of Western Australia, the majority of whom I represent as the member for Forrest. I make it clear to the House and the Government that increasingly it is the fruit and vegetable growers of Western Australia who are most directly concerned with the export markets for fresh fruit and vegetables. The markets in other States are basically concerned with domestic consumption. Even Tasmania, which is far more renowned as a fruit growing State, is increasingly concentrating on export to the north island of Australia. Western Australia, however, looks to expand markets in Asia, for obvious geographical reasons. For this reason I hope that the Minister and the Parliament will understand why the protests from Western Australian growers are much louder than those from other parts of Australia. By exporting high quality fruit and vegetables, growers are not only earning this country foreign exchange but also are relieving pressure on the domestic fruit and vegetable markets. It would be in nobody's interest to see growers leave the export market because of the new cost burden. Many of the export operators are operating at marginal levels now. The effect of this proposed and ill-timed cost imposition will be highly adverse. Firstly, a new cost will be added in the midst of the export season, particularly with regard to apples and pears. Growers were anticipating an effective cost rise per case of 11.38c, quite apart from the accounting, administrative and clerical costs that will follow. All too often governments forget that new taxes and charges impose hidden paperwork costs on the primary producers and small business. This is another example. The second factor making 1 April an inappropriate date for fruit exporters in particular is that the revision of export standard regulations with revised grade standards is not yet completed. Clearly, this would add to the difficulties faced by the growers. Early in February the executive of the Western Australian Fruit Growers Association (Inc) requested of the Minister that the new charges be deferred until revised grade standards became effective. The growers suggested 1 December as the date for introduction, which I support as it will enable the charges to be phased in at the commencement of a new season. It is significant that the growers have been supported both by the Western Australian Fruit Shippers Committee and the Western Australian Vegetable Exporters Association, underscoring the concern felt by all facets of the local fruit and vegetable industries. Until the revised export standards are finalised , growers will not be in a position to decide whether they can afford export inspection and at what level. The amount and cost of overtime by inspectors at the height of the season does not seem to have been taken into account. The vegetable exporters of my State have said that they believe that the proposed charges are greatly in excess of the costs involved. Currently fruit growers have been told that the consignment forms to be used in conjunction with inspection charge procedures are unsatisfactory and have to be redesigned in consultation with the export representatives who have to use them. Once again, the House will note just how unsuitable this 1 April target date is. The day before this legislation was introduced into this House the Minister replied to the Western Australian Fruit Growers Association, simply stating his intention to proceed, but mentioned also that an interim inspection policy council will be working to keep costs to a minimum. He did not answer its lengthy telex in any detail. I imagine that he will respond to that and to speeches by other members on this side of the House in this debate and that the reasons for his proceeding with this date, if that is his intention, will be made clear to all of us after my well-reasoned speech. In itself, such an announcement is welcome but it would seem more sensible to wait until the council meets and makes recommendations before actually beginning collection of charges. But at least the Fruit Growers Association received a reply from the Minister. As of 1 March, after the introduction of the Bill, the Western Australian Fruit and Vegetable Exporters Association had received no acknowledgment of its telex from the Minister. That does not say much for this Government's willingness to listen to the views of our primary industries. The Minister noted in the speech that payment will not be due until the end of May, but I still maintain that the growers and exporters have been given insufficient time to adapt to this new system. The cost to Western Australian fruitgrowers last year was estimated at approximately $l30,000. The cost to the little area of Donnybrook, which is a major exporter of apples, was something like $50,000. That is a lot to be taken out of one small district. It has been strongly suggested that the proposed charges have been reached by averaging the true costs of Western Australian fruit and vegetable exporters against those of less efficient and smaller volume sectors of the industries on a national basis. This underscores the burden that has been foisted on Western Australian export growers. With the administrative confusion and costs added to the direct charges, we have to ask whether the Government is serious about the encouragement of fruit and vegetable exporters. I point out that in some competing countries inspection charges are paid in full by the Government. The horticultural exporters of my State do not receive much government support compared with that received by many overseas countries. Discontinuation of the export expansion grants has not assisted the industries facing overseas competition; this should be considered in the context of the new charges. The Government ought to realise that horticultural exporters are hampered by the effects of payroll tax, customs, import duty on production equipment, sales tax on packaging, materials and the like. All are understandable costs for any local industry, but their imposition on exporters also further reduces the competitive edge and can only encourage individual growers to turn away from the export market. All the evidence before us emphasises how inopportune is the timing of the new government charge imposed on top of these other costs. The Government ought equally to realise that the withdrawal of the fruit and vegetable growers from the export market will cost Australia dearly in export earnings. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) made much in his speech of the world need for Australian exports. Over the last few years there has been a steady decline in some of our exports, particularly apples, because of the cost price squeeze on producers. This is just another burden and cost on all those industries. Furthermore, if the growers stay in the horticultural business, they will have to turn to the domestic market. Domestic growers who have hitherto benefited from reduced competition owing to a vigorous export market may now find themselves squeezed out of the industry. Large scale vegetable producers in the south-west of Western Australia, for example, might prove a dangerous source of competition to the smaller traditional producers who live in the electorates of Fremantle and Moore. This indirect benefit to the domestic market is another factor that calls into question the equity of a 50 per cent inspection cost recovery on exports, let alone its early and premature introduction. In all respects, the damage to export growers will cause human displacement from the horticultural industry and the welfare costs will come back to the Government. The Minister should be warned that the insistence on 1 April as the target date, against the advice of those sections of the industries most concerned with exports, will prove to be a measure of false economy. If the Minister does not consent to a reasonable request for delay, I hope that such delay will be imposed by this Parliament. The Opposition has a proper understanding of the value of our fruit and vegetable industries. I will not canvass further the suggestions of honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) that certain matters be taken to a committee of the Senate to review the situation, but I sincerely hope that occurs for the well-being of the growers of Australia. I recognise the problems of the other industries, the honey and canned and frozen fruit industries, but I believe they were well canvassed by the honourable member for Darling Downs. I just urge the Government to have another look at this whole question of export charges. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.25) —Firstly, I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) for a well reasoned speech. He has obviously given a lot of consideration to it and it is certainly a very refreshing change, coming from the opposite side of the House from which we have been subjected for the last couple of days to as much as hyperbole as I think we can stand. In a way it is a pity that these Bills are being taken cognately. The Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill and the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill really cause no problems as they are machinery Bills. I am sure that they are wanted by the industry and that they will be passed without any problem. I think that the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill, the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill, the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill and the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill are very reasonable. I think it should be recognised that the industry wants and needs inspection. Australia will sell only on the basis of prime quality and that prime quality can be assured only by inspection. There is a mechanism within the framework of these Bills to move towards a greater degree of self-management and I am sure that this will occur over time. It is one way in which prices will be contained in the long run. But let there be no doubt, the industry realises that it must have quality inspection for export markets and that quality must be very carefully controlled. I feel a little uneasy about the timing of the start of the Fresh Vegetables ( Export Inspection Charge) Bill and the Fresh Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill. The date, 1 April, is perhaps an unfortunate day to introduce any legislation. One thing we have to tackle here is that in the past inspections have been done by State governments. While State governments have been able to pass on to the Commonwealth in total the full costs of recovery of those inspection charges, there was no incentive whatsoever for any economy or of efficiency in the system. I think it is recognised by growers, and it must be recognised by the people of Australia that this situation leads to a responsibility. This Government is trying to come to grips with this to try to get some rationality and efficiency into these industries. In regard to the honey Bills, the way I read the situation is that although the charges are levied at $4.70 per tonne, there is scope for varying this charge because the inspections will be on a random check basis. The companies which export goods of consistently high quality will be paying a lower premium than those which export any product which is inferior and this will attract more frequent inspection. I understand there is a provision to range the inspection charge within fairly wide paramaters. I am sure this measure will be supported by the industry, because the industry knows very well that every time a shoddy product is put on the overseas market all Australia and all Australian producers suffer. So that measure is obviously to be recommended. I refer now to some of the hyperbole of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) in his rather disjointed speech. I am sure that Paul Davey agonises every time he hears one of his speeches being mangled by the honourable member for Darling Downs. The honourable member mentioned, for instance, that Australia's export of apples had dropped dramatically, and he indicated somehow or other-- Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I claim to have been misrepresented. Paul Davey does not work for me so the honourable member does not know what he is talking about. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member may give his personal explanation at the end of the debate if he claims to have been misrepresented. Mr McVeigh —I just thought I might help him. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr CAMPBELL —I think a reading of Hansard will indicate that I did not say that Paul Davey worked for the honourable member. I am sure the honourable member has a whole heap of worn-out and outdated speeches in his files. But the honourable member did say that the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill will somehow threaten the apple industry, where we see that the export of apples has dropped by some 900 per cent before the advent of this Bill. It needs an extraordinary leap of logic to tie it somehow to the action which this Government will take. I am sure that the people in general can understand that very simple and basic point. I wish to address myself to the dried fruit industry, which clearly is in a crisis situation in this country. It has been brewing for many years. During the many years that the Liberal-National Party coalition governed this country it did not really come to grips with the problems that obviously the European Economic Community would pose. A lot more could be done in the way of promotion by the dried fruit industry. Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I am sure you will attest that I am a picture of health. In all modesty I think that I could be described as very beautiful. This amazing transformation has been brought about by a new diet that I have recently developed. It relies very heavily on the eating of dried fruit. Since 1 January, while being on the diet, I have lost 10 kilos. However, such is the standard of marketing in the dried fruit industry that last Saturday in Kalgoorlie I was unable to get any dried apples. Some of the Tasmanian members will not believe it, but dried apples were unavailable in Kalgoorlie last Saturday morning. Mr Andrew —What is wrong with dried apricots? Mr CAMPBELL —There were dried apricots, but they were not particularly well packed. They were not marketed in a way that I would say would heighten consumer interest. A lot more attention could be paid by the industry to putting on sale more attractively packed mixed fruits. That would undoubtedly stimulate domestic consumption and is something that could be done with very little cost. All that would be needed would be a little initiative and flair of the sort that we have not seen from the Liberal-National Party coalition over all these years. We are hoping for an upturn in world markets, but the local market does have to be considered. The message to people should be very clear: If they forsake some of the rubbish food and the Kentucky Fried Chicken that they eat, and consume a little more dried fruit, the whole world can look like me. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree that when that great day comes it will be a much better world. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) in the course of his remarks indicated that I had made a hash of a speech written by Mr Paul Davey. I just indicate that Mr Davey is not employed by me. Due to the excellent training he received from me he has now gone to higher places. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.33) —I wish to comment on two sections of the range of export inspection charge and levy amendment Bills that we have before us. The Shepparton-Ardmona area of my electorate of Murray in northern Victoria is the major fresh pear exporting area of Australia. The grower exporters of that area have been remarkably successful in developing and maintaining export markets. They have been more successful with fresh pear exports than have the apple producers and exporters or the canned deciduous fruit people. At the moment they are greatly concerned about the increased inspection charges that have already occurred and, even more so, about those that are proposed in this legislation. They have indicated to me that, based on even the most generous calculation, of 50 per cent of the cost of the service, they would be required to pay more than twice as much as they should. This represents a very severe impost upon them. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at the table, will be visiting Shepparton this Friday and I commend him for doing so. He will be talking to the board of directors of the Ibis Milk Co-operative, the second largest dairy co-operative in Australia. I have no doubt that one of the subjects that its members will be raising with him is the problem of underwriting and the need to make an announcement on it for the coming season as early as possible to protect the stability in the dairy industry. After that meeting with the Ibis Board there will be a meeting of representatives of the fresh pear export industry and they will be pressing the Minister on the inspection cost problem. So I will leave any further comment on that point to the Minister and that group in Shepparton on Friday evening. I believe, with other speakers from the Opposition, that the sensible course of action for the Government is to defer any implementation or any increase in inspection charges until, first of all, the Minister has had time to be made more aware of the problems. This is a complex issue because of the range of industries involved. The Senate should have time to study the issues. The shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), made the point in his speech that this action will be taken in the Senate. Also, the Department of Primary Industry should be given the opportunity to put in place a more simplified inspection system which will provide better opportunities for self-inspection and self-regulation, and this will, hopefully, reduce the costs. The second point I refer to is that of a reduced levy for pears used for distillation. I commend the Minister for at least amending the Apple and Pear Levy Act to permit a lower levy charge, which I understand will be 90c per tonne compared with the fresh pear rate of $1.20 per tonne, for pears used for distillation. This lower level is the same as that for pears for juicing. Juicing or distilling pears is a marginal price operation with growers receiving only about $40 per tonne, which is below the cost of production. In short supply seasons, such as the one we are experiencing in northern Victoria at present, the distillery is not purchasing any pears whatsoever because the supply situation and the price put it out of the reach of the company this year. This amending legislation was to have been introduced 12 months ago, but the election intervened; hence the delay until now. The legislation comes after several years of lobbying by Mr Claude Peureux, the principal of the family company of which the Australian subsidiary is Shepparton Distilleries Pty Ltd. That company is a major beneficiary of this legislation at this time, although it is hoped that others will be able to take advantage of it as well. The Peureux family in France are the owners of one of the largest fruit distillery companies in Europe. With Mr Peureux in proposing the need for a more equitable levy rate for pears for distilling is Mr Andrew Furphy, the Australian manager of Shepparton Distilleries Pty Ltd. This legislation has the support of the Apple and Pear Growers Association, the Northern Victorian Fruit Growers Association and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. The distillery was established in Shepparton some years ago to utilise some of the surplus pear production and to provide a secondary supply of pear spirit, or eau de vie, a popular European aperitif. The distillery has had difficulties but has successfully developed a new value-added product for pears, both for Australia and for export markets. The pear spirit or brandy, which is 40 per cent alcohol, has a similar alcoholic content to that of standard whisky or brandy. It is sold as such or as liquor at 27 per cent alcohol. For export to Europe the spirit is concentrated to 82 per cent. I think that as well as being an alcoholic beverage one could run one's car on it fairly well. Mr Katter —A threat to road safety. Mr LLOYD —Yes; one could use it provided one did not drink before driving. The company has successfully broken through one of the toughest market barriers in the world-the European Economic Community-and it has done so with a product that Europeans consider to be one of their specialities, namely, fruit spirits and liqueurs. The company has paid the necessary levies throughout this period, while the discussion on amendment has taken place. As a result of those levies I believe the company is entitled to be the recipient of promotion support. This arrangement has been discussed with the Apple and Pear Corporation people, although I think not to the company's complete satisfaction. So I hope that in developing a domestic market as well as an export market the company will receive appropriate market support for its product in return for the levies that it has paid. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.40) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) for his sympathetic notice of motion earlier this morning and point out to the House that the husky voice I currently have as a result of a temporary ailment is the only resemblance I bear to the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. The Fresh Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill and the Bills being debated cognately deal with the recoupment of 50 per cent of export inspection charges. This policy has been recommended both by the former and present governments. In fact such a policy was introduced in the dried fruit industry from May 1981 and this Thirty-third Parliament was responsible for the introduction of such a policy in the livestock, grains, edible oils and egg industries. I note that we have chosen, by mutual agreement, to deal with these Bills in a cognate debate. Whilst I accept the wisdom of that I am a little unhappy because they are in fact related but not similar Bills. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) pointed out the inconsistency of dealing with fruit and vegetables together as if the crops had no difference, and, of course, the dried fruit levy is unrelated to the export inspection charge. So I have chosen to address the House in two parts. The first of my comments is directed at the export inspection charge and the second at the dried fruits levy. As I have indicated, there has been general acceptance of the concept of a 50 per cent export inspection charge. The industry has largely accepted this, although it has been anxious to point out that in many cases this is not the most opportune time to introduce this additional charge. I know, as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will say and as many have interjected, that it is never the most opportune time to introduce any sort of additional charge on industry. Charges on industries are rather like parliamentary salaries. When they are introduced they are never well received. But I put it to the House that in the case of the apple and pear industries and the canned fruit industries this timing is most inopportune. Both of these industries are halfway through a processing year. In fact, both are in the process of introducing new grade standards and both are for those reasons seeking deferment. These industries are seeking, not the abolition of the charge but a deferment of the charge pending their internal restructure. Both of these industries, as the Minister is well aware, are in a process of delicate restructure. I will quote from page 2473 of Hansard of 14 May 1981. On that occasion the following statement was made about the introduction of the export inspection charge into the dried vine fruit industry: Essentially, dried vine fruit growers are price takers and not farmers who can influence the world market. It is very much a market in which there is a lot of competition. Export prices at the moment are slightly higher than in previous years due to major crop failures . . . Then the speaker went on to say: Because, as I have said, Australian DVF producers are essentially price takers on world markets-about 60 per cent of Australian production is exported-any increase in charges will affect the industry's ability to compete. Mr McVeigh —Who said that? Mr ANDREW —I will tell the honourable member who said it in just a moment. A little later the speaker went on to say: I will return to the basic point: Why begin this policy of cost recovery for inspection services as a revenue raiser in one of the weakest rural industries? The industry has a lot of problems. The honourable member for Darling Downs asked who said that. The person who made the statement was the present Minister for Primary Industry. All we are asking is that the honourable member for Werriwa, who in opposition made that statement about the dried vine fruit industry, now consider a similar sympathetic attitude to the industries presently being considered by the House. I reiterate that significantly the industries are not objecting but what they are seeking is a liaison with the Minister-if honourable members will pardon the term-and an element of consensus from him to allow them to adjust this figure and to introduce this export charge so that it does not adversely affect industries which are in a very perilous situation. I suggest that these charges, small though they are in the total costs that these industries face, could well be, in the case of industries as finely balanced as the apple, pear and canned fruit industry, the straw that breaks the camel's back. The plea is for the Minister to consider in some way phasing in these charges and liaising with the industry to minimise this impost. The great concern that I have found faced by the canned fruit industry is that the inspection charge could result in duplicity, in being forced to inspect twice canned fruit for export. Of course, that is an absurdity, because once the fruit is in a can it cannot be seen or inspected. The significant inspection occurs on the line before the fruit runs into the can. The domestic market in Australian canned fruit demands a minimum standard which would meet export requirements. The industry is saying to the Minister: 'Surely we could minimise our costs if we were able to look again at the way in which we go about our export inspection '. These are the sentiments being echoed by all of the other industries. They are saying: 'Allow us to assess the way in which we carry out the export inspection and to introduce a system which will involve the minimum necessary inspection in order to maintain the maximum standards'. I suggested earlier that it was inappropriate for canned fruit and vegetables to be considered together. It is also inappropriate for canned and frozen fruit to be considered together. The canned fruit industry is still an export oriented industry. The frozen fruit industry is a domestic oriented industry. The frozen fruit industry principally occupies the Australian market. The honourable member for Darling Downs, in his speech to this House, said that industries are calling for greater flexibility from government in the introduction of these export inspection charges. I turn now to the citrus industry. The citrus industry, in harmony with the other industries that I have brought to the House's attention this morning, also does not dispute the introduction of this export inspection charge. The citrus industry is concerned, as are the other industries, about the form this inspection takes. The citrus industry is seeking some flexibility in the introduction of this charge. The citrus industry faces a charge of $10 per consignment or 9c per package. In my conversation with industry representatives, they have been concerned about whether this form of charge will penalise small consignments. They have been concerned about whether the charge is to be paid if notice of intent to export is lodged and the produce is not subsequently shipped . They have been concerned about what happens when we export to countries which do not require government inspection or phytosanitary certificates. They are concerned about the impact of this sort of legislation on fruit juices where the standard of the fruit juice in the container is largely a matter of adhering to labelling requirements rather than any other form of minimum standard. I point out to the House that the former Minister for Primary Industry, the former member for Gippsland, Mr Nixon, gave an assurance on 15 October 1982 that it was the previous Government's intention to sort out the inspection technique first and then to levy the industry for 50 per cent of the charges. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), as Acting Minister for Primary Industry, made a plea to the industry to have an opportunity for self-regulation and for the industry to have some control on the form of export inspection that was to be levied against it. I turn now to the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. As was said by previous speakers, the intention of this Bill is to increase the maximum permissible levy that can be charged dried fruit growers per tonne of dried fruit. I would not suggest that dried fruit growers welcome the increase in this levy. However, I put it to honourable members that they recognise that it is unavoidable. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), in a speech that had little, if anything, to do with export inspection and a great deal to do with what he saw as the fine physique that he possesses, made comment about the need for promotion of the dried vine fruit industry. We accept that, but the dried vine fruit industry is not an industry without problems. Indeed, the dried vine fruit industry's major markets are overseas markets. Dried fruits in Australia, vine fruits and stone fruits, are one of the unique Australian industries. It needs to be appreciated that while we sit in the comfort of this House, people are slaving in 38 degree or 40 degree temperatures in order to produce dried vine fruits for Australia. People have done this over the Christmas break and have delivered dried tree fruits. Most of the dried vine fruit growers will receive little more for the price of a tonne of fruit delivered after they have gone to the trouble of drying that fruit, than they would have received had they simply delivered that fruit fresh to a winery or processor. They are bound to dry the fruit because the wine industry has been so decimated by the Government's decision to introduce an impost on fortified wine that there are surpluses and dried vine fruit outlets are the only direction that they can turn. It has put them on the rack. They have to decide whether to dry them or leave them on the vines. That uncomfortable choice is being faced by growers who are now working for nothing because they could have received just as much had they chosen the easier outlet by delivering those grapes to a winery. I make that point because this levy will allow the dried vine fruit industry and the dried fruit industry generally to pursue additional market outlets and additional productivity gains through the research that is available to them. The dried vine fruit and dried tree fruit producers in harmony with all other primary producers in Australia face the dilemma of rising costs and have been forced to meet the rising costs by rising productivity. It would be as well for this nation if other sectors also faced a similar technique for meeting their rising costs. Only rising productivity can keep the dried fruit industry from bankruptcy. Research is the survival kit for the dried fruit industry. Promotion is a part of that survival kit. We have already seen, in the industry, what research can do. The introduction, for example, of the Ramsay rootstock has meant that sultana vines in the Riverland and Sunraysia areas have had dramatic increases in production because that rootstock has proved to be both salt and nematode tolerant. Research is the one key that has allowed these increases in production to occur. I suggest to the Government that the preparedness of growers to accept this additional levy indicates that they are prepared to take their share of the burden in making the industry even more competitive and cost efficient than it is. They seek from the Government a similar preparedness to control wages, on- costs and inflation so that, as a nation, we will remain competitive. They seek a government prepared to act responsibly and accountably in economic management. We see little evidence of that when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tells us in this House, as he did yesterday, that estimates of the deficit are purely illusory and meaningless. If he is prepared to be as shortsighted as that about economic management the growers are apprehensive about what the future will hold for them in the control and management of inflation and wage costs. The other Bill before the House is the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) has already spoken at length on this Bill. It is significant that apples and pears currently destined for distillation are meeting a levy at the processing rate. What has surprised me, as I investigated this Bill, has been the preparedness of apple and pear growers to accept their share of increased levies and to point out to me the amount of money they, as growers, already generate through various levies in order to be involved in research and promotion in the industry. In South Australia the present levy on apples and pears on average is 9c a bushel and costs the average grower $45 per acre per year. In addition he faces a State levy of $12 per acre per year or a total outlay of $57 per acre per year , which is a vote of confidence in the industry expressed by the apple and pear growers in order to ensure their future survival in the Australian economy. Like the dried fruit industry, the apple and pear industry has to export into a highly competitive market. In order to remain viable it must maintain its productivity. The amendment we are considering exempts apples and pears for processing from the full levy rate and allows fruit for distillation to be levied at the juicing rate. I believe there is unanimous support in the House for that amendment. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.55) —in reply-Today's debate on these export inspection charge Bills has been a lot more sensible than the display to which we were treated last night. I would largely ignore the silly and personal remarks in the contribution to the debate of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) except that his reporting of my statement that the only things sillier than chooks are the people who look after them has severely wounded me. I will explain that comment. I participated in a radio program on politicians' favourite music, a rather light-hearted program, and seeing that I spent 33 years of my life on a chook farm-- Mr Hollis —A good chook farm. Mr KERIN —I was a very good chook farmer. The interviewer asked me how I got on with the chooks, and I said I used to say that the only thing sillier than chooks were the people who looked after them. To put it in the vernacular, I was having a shot at myself. Had I known that the honourable member for Darling Downs would seize upon this phrase uttered in a joking manner and write to every egg board and poultry farmer organisation in Australia, I assure the House that I would have said that the only thing sillier than a chook is the honourable member for Darling Downs. I was disappointed with the contribution of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). As he says well over three quarters of the apple industry of Tasmania is in his electorate. However, he treated this whole debate as a joke. At least the honourable member for Darling Downs did not do that. I was concerned in one instance when I thought the honourable member for Franklin verged on the irresponsible. We all know that the dried vine fruit industry is in a lot of trouble, and just yesterday the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) gave a notice of a motion on the plight of that industry. I ask that honourable gentlemen opposite read the Industries Assistance Commission report on short term assistance to the industry and my Press release following Cabinet' s consideration of that report. The industry has been in trouble for a long time. The previous Government failed to act particularly in respect of the suggested setting up of a two pool price plan in 1978 or 1979. I know there were problems with that and with the industry, and the industry then picked up for two years. But it is in terrible trouble. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and I did work very hard, through the Victorian Government, to make sure that all avenues of rural reconstruction were made available to growers who had some hope of viability. A meeting of bankers and social workers was convened and there has been a lot of attention given at the official level to try to look after some of the people who are particularly badly affected at present. I will not go into all the details of that but at least 100 or 200 growers out of the 4,500 growers in this industry are in a desperate situation. The point that worries me is one reflected by the industry itself. I refer to imports. I am certainly sympathetic towards producers' concerns about imports of subsidised Greek fruit. Over the last nine months something like 780 tonnes have come into the country, but 420 tonnes of that were imported by the Australian Dried Vine Fruits Association because there was a shortfall of one type of fruit . We should look at this matter rather carefully. The industry is seeking countervailing action. We have already made representations on the matter to European Economic Community officials but we also need to realise that the EC is a major market for our dried fruits, sales of which totalled some 27,600 tonnes in 1982-83. So we must be conscious of the implications of any action we take, particularly as I understand the EC is presently considering a change to its import regime. This is of major importance to us. The week after next there will be two days of talks in Canberra between EC and Australian officials and Ministers, and I assure the honourable member for Mallee that the issues relating to dried fruits will be discussed with a view to achieving a better marketing climate and an understanding of each other's position. When I introduced these Bills I pointed out that the legislation to impose the 50 per cent recoupment charge on honey inspection was introduced by the previous Government in March 1982. This clearly shows the hypocrisy of the Opposition. This measure was introduced in March 1982, and the Senate then referred the relevant Bills to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Apparently if the Opposition has its way in the Senate the legislation will again go through that Senate committee. It has already been through that Committee once and we took that into account when framing these Bills. As we all know, the Liberal-National Party Government introduced charges for inspection in 1979. It introduced charges for the inspection of meat, wool and grains and the policy of that Government was to extend the cost recovery to all export products. Honey was another such product, and in March 1982 this measure was proposed. Admittedly it was referred to a Senate committee, but that Government did introduce the charge. When I took over my portfolio it was obvious that the Department of Primary Industry, acting under instructions from the previous Government and Minister, had all these matters in train and was subjecting the various industries to a thorough costing so that inspection which had just gone on willy-nilly before, with no scrutiny and no attention by the industries themselves, would not continue in that fashion. Industries were not really required to look at the level of costs or the systems of inspection. For the first time they were placed on notice and had to take into account just how much of this inspection was needed. Before they were getting the service for nothing and so did not have to focus on it. All I can say is that the present Government agrees with that policy of the user pays. After all, the taxpayer is still subsidising the services to the extent of 50 per cent. It was the then Government that initiated these charges, not the present Government. This Government is committed to making the inspection services as efficient and cost effective as possible and as this is progressively done any cost savings will be passed on as lower charges. One simply cannot assume that we should never impose a charge or system of inspection which has to operate on a day to day basis. We cannot work on the principle that we should never do anything, strike any charge, because subsequently we might find a better way to carry out that practice. So any cost savings will be progressively passed on to the industry. There is an example of that, which some people seem to have missed, in the canned and frozen vegetables legislation. The review of practices currently under way has already enabled charges to be reduced to one-third of the levels anticipated only four months ago. So we are acting, but we do have a top rate inspection service. To give industries a window and some idea of what is going on, we have set up the Interim Inspection Policy Council. The previous Government would not do that . It intended to impose these measures without any consultation. Our proposals give the industries exposure to the systems, to levels of inspection and to the costs. We are not inspecting for quality in any ambiguous sense. Where phytosanitary certificates are required, someone has to look at the product and issue such a certificate. We are looking at matters such as health standards and at product specifications and grade to make sure that no one, for example with apples, tops up the boxes. I am surprised that it has to be said again and again , but we now have an inspection service which is becoming more and more efficient and more and more set in place. The reason is that we are in competition with the rest of the world to sell our products. We cannot continue with some of these silly ideas of self-regulation when we are in such a highly competitive environment. If there are to be self-regulation measures, they have to be applied in some ordered, administered and regular fashion. We cannot just proceed down the path of not doing it properly. A decent and proper export inspection service is a major selling point for our private traders when they go overseas. We must have an export inspection service that really does look at the quality and standard of our products. Surely we do not have to be reminded of the meat substitution scandal when the previous Government, and I suppose all previous governments, tried to do it on the cheap. That is the reason our enormous beef trade was put at risk. It was prejudiced by the previous Government because the previous Government tried to do it on the cheap and was not prepared to insist that a proper export inspection service be set up. I do not have to go into all that. We know all about it. This Government is carrying on the work of the previous Government. Once the previous Government realised that we had to have a proper export inspection service, it went for a user pays principle to the extent of 50 per cent. We are following down the same path and will carry on the same task. The honourable member for Darling Downs has given notice that he will dump all these Bills on to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Apparently he has the acquiescence of the Australian Democrats in the Senate on this matter. The honourable member helpfully gave to us the matters which the Committee would look at. The first one, as I recall, was: Is there any legal and international requirement for an inspection? Let us go through that. The official importing country requirements vary depending on the products covered. In the fresh fruit and vegetable area, officially-issued phytosanitary, that is, plant health, inspection and certification is required as a condition of entry overseas for an estimated 80 per cent of our export products. In some cases, for example, the export of certain fruits to the North American market, these requirements involve inspection extending to the growing area. There is no need for a Senate committee to look at this. We actually know what goes on overseas and what the requirements are. As I have already said, the Senate Committee on Finance and Government Operations in its May 1982 report reviewed the situation applying to honey, but apparently the honourable member for Darling Downs wants to send the matter back to that same Committee. In the case of canned and processed fruits and vegetables there are few specific overseas requirements imposing an inspection obligation. Generally products have to meet fairly universal food law requirements that they be sound, free from adulteration and true-to-label. It is important to realise that the purpose of inspection is broader than just ensuring overseas requirements are met. It aims also at maintaining Australia's image as a consistent producer of quality product, and at preventing that image and the trade of conscientious and reliable exporters being damaged by the actions of a few. Also, it is essential that our exports are of adequate quality and presentation to compete effectively overseas with those of our major competitors. On Asian fresh fruit markets, for example, our competitors include the United States of America, New Zealand and South Africa, whose products are generally well-controlled, through entrenched and sophisticated industry self- regulation, or strict government monitoring. The second matter which the honourable member for Darling Downs wants the Senate Committee to look at is: How can industry be more self-regulatory? As I have already said, the currently-proceeding review of export inspection arrangements envisages, for canned and processed fruits and vegetables and honey , a completely new inspection approach-it is already in these Bills-involving quality assurance monitoring for the best firms allied to more objective inspection arrangements for the remainder. The quality assurance approach would apply to both areas. Firms with a good export performance record and established in-house quality control procedures will be able to enter into approved quality assurance arrangements with the inspection service. Under these the service will essentially rely on the firm's own quality control to ensure compliance with export requirements, with minimal monitoring. This is essentially a system of self-regulation backed up with the minimal control necessary to ensure products are up to standard. What it means is that exporters are given the opportunity to demonstrate objectively that they are capable of operating effectively in a self -regulatory manner. If honourable members look at the Bills they will see-this is particularly so with respect to honey-that there is a three-strand level of charging. Quality assurance monitoring criteria will be designed to operate flexibly, to take into account differences in individual circumstances from firm to firm. The random sampling approach is envisaged for honey and parallels approaches being developed for the inspection of fish, dairy products, edible oils and eggs. For canned and processed fruit and vegetable products, the review of arrangements outside the quality assurance area is not as advanced as it is for honey. The very large production runs make a random sampling approach more difficult to effectively implement. My Department is, however, looking at alternatives, aimed at achieving cost savings, which would rely to a greater extent on monitoring company control records and laboratory practice as part of the inspection approach. In the fresh fruit and vegetable area, the phytosanitary inspection effort required to meet overseas requirements is by its nature relatively intensive. For this reason, although random monitoring already applies in many instances, there is a limit to which it can be cut back. In consultation with industry, inspection quality standards are currently being developed aimed at clarifying and harmonising export requirements and this work is being intermeshed with the development of domestic standards by the Australian United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association. A review of inspection procedures and arrangements followed by State departments, which carry out the inspection on the Commonwealth's behalf is also proceeding. The next matter which the honourable member for Darling Downs raised was: Is the flag fall plus a per package charge justified: Why not an ad valorem charge? The so-called flag charge applies only to fresh fruit and vegetables. The size of export consignments of these products is highly variable. Many shipments consist of thousands of packages of such things as apples, oranges or onions. But there are also many small consignments of one or a few boxes, many of which use air freight. The cost of inspecting these small consignments is high, particularly when an inspector is called out to an airport to do just one small job. The charge is to recoup part of the cost of inspection. The flag fall charge reflects the fact that it costs more to inspect small consignments. If there were no minimum charge large shippers would be subsidising the shippers of small consignments. If there were no minimum charge the charge per package would have to be increased from 9c to 12c to recoup 50 per cent of the total of inspection costs. Indeed, shippers of very small consignments might well escape payment altogether since it could cost more that it was worth to collect very small amounts from them. An ad valorem charge is attractive in theory. In practice it would be very difficult to administer effectively since it would have to rely on shippers truthfully stating the value of their consignments. It would also have the unfair result that high value produce would be subsidising low value produce even though the actual inspection costs may be identical in both instances. The next question which the honourable member raised was: Should the Industries Assistance Commission be asked to look at a quality assurance scheme? The approach to quality assurance inspection being developed by my Department is based on the Australian standard for suppliers quality control systems developed by the Standards Association of Australia, and on international work in the area . The concept has been extensively canvassed already with exporters in a number of product areas, including fish and dairy, and is currently being explored with the canned and processed fruit and vegetable industry. The quality assurance approach to inspection is designed to be flexible to meet different circumstances and approaches to quality control followed in different firms. It is designed as far as possible to tie in with established, effective, quality control systems rather than imposing new and different requirements on firms which already operate effective control. The system is, moreover, to be trailed extensively before it is formally introduced. In these circumstances it would be a waste of both resources and time to refer the matter for IAC inquiry. A further matter which the honourable member for Darling Downs wants the Senate Committee to consider is: Are there too many inspectors? The aim of the export inspection review is to ensure the service is cost-effective and that inspection is limited to essential areas of control except where otherwise justified by the industry. A review of the relevance of current inspection staffing levels is part of this process, in consultation with both the unions and industry. Importantly, the currently-proposed charging levels for canned and frozen fruits and honey reflect anticipated savings under the new inspection regime. The fresh fruit and vegetable review is not yet sufficiently advanced to anticipate likely savings. It would be anomalous, however, to exclude that area from charging at the current time when charges are to be introduced for the other export sectors. The next question that the honourable member for Darling Downs maintains the Opposition will refer to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations is: Why is there not a difference between canned and frozen fruit and vegetable charges? The revised system proposed for these products is to inspect plants and their procedures, to register them and then to randomly monitor their continued compliance with requirements. This is exactly what the honourable member for Darling Downs proposed should be done. That is the system which the Government is applying to those products where such an approach is possible. The costs of running the system are unlikely to differ as between plants with comparable standards and performance irrespective of whether they produce canned or frozen products. Consequently a standard charge for both categories of product is considered appropriate. Experience may show that some individual establishments require a greater degree of monitoring than others. If that occurs, the Government will be looking to implement a differential charging system so that establishments which are more costly to supervise will pay more in charges. In other words, there will be an incentive for establishments to adopt satisfactory quality assurance procedures so as to avoid having to pay additional charges. (Extension of time granted) The final question that the honourable member for Darling Downs maintains the Opposition will refer to the Senate Committee concerns the basis of State charges and accountability. Of the Bills under debate, this question relates only to those dealing with fresh fruit and vegetables. The States charge the Commonwealth for inspection of these products. They keep itemised accounts of the costs incurred, which are subject to audit by State Auditors-General. The accounts when so audited are submitted to my Department, accompanied by a certification given by the Chief Officer of the State Department concerned. In our federal system there are many areas of co-operative activity such as this. This system of accounting is common to many of the activities. There were other comments about Portuguese armies of inspectors. I do not know how the Portuguese got into this but I think I have already addressed that issue because the review proposed an inspection approach which would be based predominantly on objective criteria, and these will be flagged clearly to both industry and inspection staff. The honourable member also said that the honey standards are still too high. I have already made mention of that inasmuch as we took fully into account the conclusions of the Senate committee that has already looked at it. One of the final points that the honourable gentleman made is that the charging Bill for honey should await the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the honey industry. In the case of honey, what we are looking at is a charge which is much less than one per cent of the freight on board value of a tonne of honey. The draft IAC report on the honey industry, which was released on 14 February 1984, did not make any comments on the question of charging for export inspection other than to mention the charging proposal in this legislation. The draft report did not recommend any assistance to the industry. As I have said, it is Government policy to recover 50 per cent of the cost of export inspection of primary produce. Should the IAC recommend in its final report that some form of assistance to the industry is justified, in accordance with normal procedures this will be considered by the Government. It is rather a weak crutch to put as rationale for delaying the passage of these Bills that because there is an IAC report into an industry relating to different questions one should not put through a package of Bills. The only other point to which I wish to reply is that raised by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), who made a claim with respect to fresh and canned fruit and vegetables being an export industry on the one hand and a domestic industry on the other. The point here is that the plants which wish to export frozen produce, and some do, must comply with the same kinds of requirements as the export canneries and, of course, they then incur similar inspection costs for registration and monitoring. I have taken some considerable time to answer the points of which the honourable member for Darling Downs so kindly gave notice in the debate last night. I am sure that the Australian Democrats will accept the explanation given and the fact that the Government has addressed itself to every one of these points. It is quite clear to me that the Opposition is simply focusing on the fact that people do not want to pay. The rest of the arguments are rather weak arguments indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(11.24) —I wish to make a few remarks to rebut some of the nonsense stated by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his reply . He quoted from the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I have a copy of that report here. I regret very much indeed that the Minister has not read that report, and I say that in all sincerity. It disappoints me because it is important. I quote from recommendation 6.6.12 on page 47 of that Committee's sixth report, which states: That the export of honey no longer require an export permit and to that extent that the provisions of the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905-1973 not apply . I raise that point, not in a spirit of anger, but to indicate to the Minister that when he comes in here and talks a lot of waffle indicating that it is not appropriate to return to the Senate for examination certain matters pertaining to honey, he should at least say that the Senate Standing Committee in its sixth report agreed totally with my point of view. I do not know what the Minister put up to the Cabinet, but I know that whatever he put up he did not get through, because he has never got anything through. It is astonishing that the Government brings in a piece of legislation that flies utterly in the face of that report. The Minister opposes a move in the Senate, which is the House of review, and which is charged, as Senator Chipp said, 'To keep the bastards honest'. I am not a bullock driver-I hate using that type of language-but I think it is important to be accurate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) — Order! Mr McVEIGH —That is an exact quote. I have said that I do not like using that language but I wanted to be absolutely accurate as I am in all things. It is very appropriate that the matter be referred back to that Committee for further investigation, particularly as the Government has taken no cognisance of its report. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance in allowing me to bring that point to the debate and for letting the people of Australia know that the Minister does not even read the reports of statutory authorities. If he does , he does not understand them. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.26) —in reply-I am not going to reply to the nonsensical statements about whether I read reports or not. If the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) had read my second reading speech he would know. The recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations were taken into account in framing this legislation. The matter raised by the honourable member which related to the need for an export permit was examined closely by the Department and me and was found to be necessary for the effective administration of the new export inspection system. The requirement for a permit is the only basis on which any form of control over exports can be established. It is a means whereby the Customs Service is assured that a particular consignment complies with the regulatory requirements and may be exported. The feasibility of issuing a certificate in respect of honey at the same time as the export permit and other export documentation, as I have already said, is under examination. It is anticipated that in general it will be the responsibility of the exporter to obtain analytical certificates from a National Association of Testing Authorities laboratory, a credited laboratory, to meet importing country requirements for detailed chemical analyses. This has been looked at as part of our consideration and it is part of the legislation before the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 March. Clauses 7 to 27 agreed to. Clauses 28 to 37-by leave-taken together. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(11.30) —by leave-I move: (7) Clause 28, page 18, lines 27-40, omit sub-clause (3), substitute the following sub-clause: ''(3) A person shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to sexually harass another person if- (a) the first-mentioned person makes a sexual advance, or a request for sexual favours, to the other person, or engages in other conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person; (b) the other person takes reasonable steps to communicate to the first- mentioned person that the advance, request or conduct is unwelcome; and (c) (i) the first-mentioned person makes it reasonably appear to the other person that a rejection of the advance, a refusal of the request or the taking objection to the conduct would disadvantage the other person in any way in connection with the other person's employment or work or possible employment or possible work; or (ii) as a result of the other person's rejection of the advance, refusal of the request or taking of objection to the conduct, the other person is disadvantaged in any way in connection with the other person's employment or work or possible employment or possible work.''. (8) Clause 29, page 19, line 8-22, omit sub-clause (2), substitute the following sub-clause: A person shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to a sexually harass another person if- (a) the first-mentioned person makes a sexual advance, or a request for sexual favours, to the other person, or engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person; (b) the other person takes reasonable steps to communicate to the first- mentioned person that the advance, request or conduct is unwelcome; and (c) (i) the first-mentioned person makes it reasonably appear to the other person that a rejection of the advance, a refusal of the request or the taking objection to the conduct would disadvantage the other person in any way in connection with the other person's studies or the other person's application for admission to an educational institution as a student; or (ii) as a result of the other person's rejection of the advance, refusal of the request or taking of objection to the conduct, the other person is disadvantaged in any way in connection with the other person's studies or the other person's application for admission to an educational institution as a student.''. In moving these two amendments, the Opposition does not in any way want to dilute the provisions of the Bill. We are in fact supportive of the objectives of these two clauses. There was considerable debate in the Senate, however, about whether the endeavour of these clauses to correct discrimination against a person following complaints of sexual harassment actually jeopardised the position of the person who is alleged to have done the harassing and the discrimination. The Opposition is not fully satisfied with the answer given by the responsible Minister in the Senate. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be able to comment a little more fully on these concerns. Perhaps the most sensible way of starting the debate is actually to go to some of the reports of sexual harassment under State jurisdiction. Looking at page 11 of the 1983 annual report of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity in Victoria one sees the following: A fifth of all employment complaints this year alleged sexual harassment in the workplace. 41 complaints-a quarter of all employment complaints from women-dealt with various forms of such behaviour, ranging from persistent innuendo through unwelcome touching to sexual assault. In earlier years, only one complaint had ever been received about sexual overtures made to a job applicant, but three such complaints were registered this year. In 20 of the 41 cases, the complaint was linked to the loss of employment-either dismissal following alleged advances, or resignation of the victim owing to pressure or distress. In 17 cases, the aggrieved woman complained that the unwanted behaviour created detrimental work conditions of fear, hostility or offensiveness; and in one case, a salary classification was felt to be contingent upon acceptance of sexual attentions. The outcomes of these sexual harassment complaints (including one complaint in accommodation against an estate agent) was as shown in Table 4. Table 4 on page 12 in fact shows that nine complaints were withdrawn; eight were not substantiated; 19 were settled by conciliation; two were referred to the Board; and four were still under investigation. The settlements included: Formal apology; education of respondent to prevent harassment; payment of lost wages; damages for distress; transfer of the harasser; dismissal of the harasser; reprimand of the harasser; reinstatement of the complainant; and promotion of the complainant. I believe that that indicates a level and pattern of conduct which would be unacceptable to all persons in this House and, indeed, to all decent Australians. The only reservation expressed by the Opposition is that in the pursuit of redress by people who believe they have been discriminated against in employment , on the basis that they rejected some sexual advance or made a complaint about unwelcomed attention of a sexual character, a vendetta may be pursued as a result of some falling out between people.The person who is unaware that that sexual attention is unwelcome or that if it was once welcome it has now ceased to be must not be unjustly treated. The object of these amendments is to ensure that the aggrieved person actually is obliged to communicate the nature of the complaint to the offending person who, it is said sometime later, was discriminated on the grounds of the complaint about sexual harassment. As I have said this matter was dealt with at length in the Senate, and I understand the intention. Again one sees in the report of the New South Wales Anti- Discrimination Board other cases of sexual harassment which are really quite horrifying. The Board spends quite some time in its report examining the famous case of O'Callaghan v. Loder and the Commissioner for Main Roads. That case is mentioned in the report of the New South Wales Board of 30 June 1983, from which I have quoted earlier in the debate. It is educational to note that the report states: The women complaining of sexual harassment in these work situations are typically young and poorly educated. They are almost always not a member of a union and, in addition to sexual harassment, are exploited in their rates of pay and working hours. They complain that their employers treat them as if they ' owned' them. They also complain of verbal abuse, physical touching and grabbing, and repeated and sometimes violent requests for sexual relations which, they are told, it is part of their job to provide. The report continues: As youth unemployment increases, particularly amongst young women, this type of sexual harassment becomes more difficult to resist as the young women who leave find themselves without any prospects of another job. A young woman complaining of sexual harassment over a long period said, when asked why she'd put up with it, 'I knew it was the only job I'd ever have.' That quote is on page 157 of the report. The following paragraph on page 158 states: Most of the women who complain of sexual harassment are, perhaps not surprisingly, somewhat timid in what they ask for by way of resolution. Many merely want the employers told that their behaviour is in breach of the Act. They hope that, by complaining, they can prevent other women from being subjected to the same sort of treatment. Other complainants wish merely to receive a reference, which is often denied. A very small number of complainants seek compensation either in the form of financial damages or in disciplinary action against the alleged harasser. If the Deputy Prime Minister can assure the Committee that it is those blatant cases with which the Act is primarily concerned, and in the event of there being a trumped up and greatly inflated allegation it would be sifted out in the conciliation process without there being undue pressure on an employer to admit to something which in fact was not a grevious harassment of the order described, I think many of the fears reflected in this amendment would be abated. There is concern about the attention that men have given over the years, undoubtedly of a sexist character but perhaps not sexual in the strongest sense; such attention might suddenly now be paid. We know very well that men have sometimes subconsciously viewed women as sex objects. We know very well that 20 years ago or 10 years ago a pat on the bottom was regarded as somehow appropriate conduct on the part of men. It was accepted or tolerated by women without necessarily being welcomed. Certainly, if women had patted males on the bottom it would have been regarded as odd, and may even have been the cause of a reprimand. The truth is that individuals have the right not to be touched or interfered with, as a matter of privacy and dignity. It is also true that in a hierarchical situation timid people find it hard to communicate their dislike of unwelcome attention from a superior. We accept all of that, but I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that these amendments are aimed at ensuring a safeguard from vexatious allegations of harassment which could result from a subconscious, paternalistic, certainly sexist, but not meant to be harassing, sexual act on the part of a male superior. If the Deputy Prime Minister has not fully grasped the degree of concern, I may intervene later in the debate on this clause. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister understands the concern and a reading of the amendment indicates that. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.40) —The amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) concerns me specifically because it states in part: (b) the other person takes reasonable steps to communicate to the first- mentioned person that the advance, request or conduct is unwelcome; I believe we have to ask ourselves what are the reasonable steps to take in the situation that the honourable member for Balaclava has already described in which a young and inexperienced person is being sexually harassed by an older person who is in the position to dismiss that person. I believe that people in that situation wish to distance themselves from such behaviour and ought not be compelled to communicate directly with the person whose behaviour is being objected to. I think that amendment is an unreasonable expectation in the circumstances which have been so well documented in the report of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board and of the report of the Victorian Commissioner for Equal Opportunity. It makes no allowance for the kinds of social situations which we find and which we know exist. They did not just exist 10 or 20 years ago. Patting on the bottom still exists here; one has only to sit in the members ' dining room and watch the behaviour of some honourable members towards those people who look after them. I think it is important that we understand that that lack of power and confidence, shyness and embarrassment are all things which would make it impossible for the person who is receiving the objectionable behaviour to take reasonable steps towards communicating with that person. I would find no difficulty in doing that at all and because that is plain I am not the object of sexual harassment. Those women who are the object of sexual harassment are those who plainly are not experienced or confident enough to be able to object to it, or to know, even though they have the law backing them up, that that objection will be taken as serious. I believe that the amendment puts far too much responsibility on the victim and far too little responsibility on the harasser. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(11.43) —I am in full sympathy with the remarks of the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer). I was not suggesting that physical molestation and harassment had ceased, merely that people are now aware of it and those who continue that practice do so at their own risk not only because of this legislation but also because of rebuke from the women concerned and from other men, if they are aware of it. I was merely indicating that because old habits die hard and old attitudes are hard to change there is a fear amongst some men who now accept that such behaviour was wrong. Nonetheless it is really hard to satisfy them that any other action they might take will not amount in someone's eyes to harassment because of the subjective nature of the tests involved. I will use an illustration which I do not think will offend the people involved . When you, Madam Chairman, were elected as Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, you were congratulated by the honourable member for Wide Bay ( Mr Millar), the person whom you beat in the ballot. He is a person whom all honourable members respect, and for whom you said you had considerable affection . He congratulated you by saying that it was a very nice thing that the fair sex was now represented in this exalted position. That was not meant to be patronising or sexist. It was a remark made by a gentleman whose view towards the way in which women should be treated differs only in its manner from the view of others. Younger men would not think that it was a necessary act of grace to make that remark. Men from the same generation as the honourable member or those with the same Australian male outlook might engage in other conduct which could be regarded as sexist, paternalistic but not meant to be harassing. They are afraid that they might, through conduct which they did not regard as being unwelcome, land in court or in the public eye. They are afraid that even within the group in which they mix or in their own office they might be seen as some sexual deviant who harassed people, and this is the problem. The amendment is based a little on the judgment of Judge Jane Mathews, made on 21 June 1983, in the Loder case. It draws a little from some of what Her Honour had to say. Indeed, substantial extracts from the judgment appear at pages 158 and following of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board report. For example, Her Honour says, as is shown at the foot of page 159: The employer must either know that his conduct is unwelcome, or the circumstances must be such that he should know it. In other words, conduct which is persisted with in the face of rejection from the employee is capable of being unlawful under this head. Conduct which is continued in the face of an equivocal response may or may not be so. In all cases it is a precondition of liability that the complainant show both that the conduct was unwelcome in fact and that the employer either knew or ought to have known of this. That is where the problems arise because the timidity of some of the women who are undoubtedly harassed is such that they find it exceedingly difficult to say to a superior: 'No, I don't like that kind of attention; I don't like that language' or whatever. Her Honour goes on: A further breach of section 25(2)(a) can occur when an employer secures compliance with his sexual demands by threatening adverse employment consequences. The Tribunal will no doubt tread cautiously in relation to claims of sexual harassment made by employees who have entered into sexual relationships with their employers, for such relationships usually have the quality of mutuality. Those extracts illustrate the difficulties that the Human Rights Commission will face in administering this legislation. Since the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has already said that these amendments will not be accepted, the Opposition is anxious that it at least be given an assurance by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) that in the event of rigidities and injustices appearing the Government will examine ways, either procedurally through the Human Rights Commission, or by an amendment of the Act, to ensure that there will not be an over-reaction to the extent that these provisions are abused and result in bogus complaints being made-complaints which, in the course of being found to be bogus , might cause a great deal of embarrassment to an innocent employer or superior, who might be hauled before at least a conciliation process, such that people will begin to say that yes, he is alleged to have sexually harassed somebody. The very word 'harassment' is somewhat technical. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows only too well, in relation to such terms as battery and assault, technically an assault can be verbal, it need not amount to a major bashing up that lands someone in hospital. In the same way a slight act can be an harassment, although, of course it ought to be repetition and so on. I hope that the Government, though it will not accept these amendments, will appreciate the spirit in which they are offered. The Opposition, without wanting to jeopardise the objectives of the Bill, submits that the procedures set out in these amendments are not unreasonable. Briefly, they refer to the fact that the first-mentioned person must actually make an advance, there must be a series of communications concerning the unwelcomeness of the conduct, its persistence, and evidence of it. I will not read out the amendments but it is important that the Deputy Prime Minister satisfy the general public, not just the Opposition, that people will be given a fair go, that there will need to be, at the time of the occurrence of the conduct complained of, evidence of the fact that it was unwelcome, that there should not merely be a later reconstruction of the fact that it was unwelcome, that there should be some evidence that once the harassment was complained of discrimination followed. There will be quite a lot of concern simply because the social debate is now a confused one. We all accept that and know the reasons why. A good many people will never change their sexist approach, yet they will try to come to grips with this in good faith.They will not be persistently, stubbornly, deliberately sexist but they will be unconsciously so because this legislation represents quite a remarkable break with the patterns of the past. I feel that such people need to be satisfied that they are not going to find themselves exposed to all sorts of trumped-up charges. We see it every day. Allegations appear not only in such publications as the Toorak Times and the Truth. Even under privilege of parliament things are said about people who are now worried about whether the traditional office party and some of that nonsense will produce a charge of sexual harassment and whether they, in the presence of their peers, are to be shamed for something that was a frolic in good fun and did not really amount to serious sexual harassment. They are the concerns that underlie this amendment. We hope that the Government will at least, if it will not accept the amendment, will assure us that it will monitor the situation carefully and rectify any injustices that may fall on the other side of the ledger. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.52) —I thank the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), whose approach in these matters is quite sensible, for his contribution to the debate. As I understand the case that he is putting, there is concern that some information should be given to the harasser at the time of the conduct because otherwise what might be thought to be quite a pleasant advance has in fact been objected to and the person concerned may or may not know about it. I think we are getting into this position because we are using the word 'sex', which certainly evokes a lot of interest and is equally certainly exploited. But sex is one thing and harassment is another. If we look at page 3 of the average modern daily we see a fair amount of exploitation of the female form, exploitation that is in no way related to what this Bill is about. I suppose that if it got to the position that an employer was insisting that his female employee posed for photographs in a certain way it could amount to harassment if, further, it was said that unless that was done there could be no promotion in employment. Therefore, it does not have to be so much a physical matter as a question of an unwelcome sexual advance or request for sexual favours. Madam Chair, I would be very anxious to disabuse you of any thought that the fact that you were referred to as a person of the fair sex in any way amounted to an advance of a sexual nature. I think that is carrying it a bit too far. What we are concerned with is a matter of definition. As the honourable member, who has had legal training, has said, anybody who threatens to make an advance technically is guilty of an assault, and the application of the advance, to the body in any shape or form, is actually the battery element. The law already has an enormous number of provisions relating to offensive words, offensive behaviour, assault and battery, obscene language and so on. All of those matters are already covered. What we have to get through to the distinguished Opposition is that there is another test here. Before the provisions can apply the advance or conduct must be unwelcome, and unwelcome means not pleasing or not gladly received. When the complainant brings the complaint, he or she will have to show that the conduct was unwelcome at the time that it was engaged in. This can be done in a number of ways. It can certainly be done by giving evidence that there was a rejection of the advance, certainly by giving evidence that a complaint was made to a supervisor or a co-employee and certainly by refusing perhaps to continue to work alone with the harasser. However, also, the person harassed must believe on reasonable grounds-this is the additional factor-that the refusal, rejection or objection to it could lead to a disadvantage. So the Bill covers only sexual harassment that constitutes discrimination. One just cannot put this in isolation. One also has to say: 'Look, there is discrimination as a result of this position'. It has been put to me that there is a requirement that , as well as the conduct being unwelcome, the complainant must also show on reasonable grounds that there has been a disadvantage. The legislation is not aimed at friendly comments made to a work mate about appearance or opening doors or anything of that nature. There needs to be the other objective test that the person concerned must believe on reasonable grounds that there is going to be discrimination. Therefore, I think that what we are saying to honourable gentlemen opposite is that this is a very normal approach to a difficult area of definition. We feel that the Opposition's amendments, if accepted, would rob these provisions of much of their effectiveness. Often people who are harassed are not always in a position to make clear that the conduct is unwelcome. For example, the amendment does not clearly indicate how the harassee is supposed to communicate his or her objection. It implies that sexual conduct by people in a position of authority will always be welcome unless a clear objection is made to it. So I think we can certainly give an assurance to the honourable member for Balaclava that we will have a look at the method of definition if it is found there is some extraordinary interpretation being given to this part of the legislation which would in any way prevent what one would call normal relations. Of course, any government would do that. Clause 28 deals with sexual harassment in employment but does not apply to State employees. Clause 29 deals with sexual harassment of staff of education institutions. Of course, that does apply. The essence is the unwelcome advance or an unwelcome request. The person harassed-I must stress this strongly-must have reasonable grounds for believing that the rejection and so on will result in disadvantage. Therefore, a dual factor has to be considered. I think that certainly puts the obligation on people who feel that they have been harassed to convince the Commission that there are strong grounds for believing that, apart from being harassed, the action has led to discrimination. In other words, there has to be the other factor as well. I do not think we need dwell too much on this because there will be conciliation and discussion about this matter. I am certain that in many cases in the past a lot of evidence was never given to any authority or commissioner in regard to where people have been disadvantaged. That can be summed up by the old expression, if you will pardon me, Madam Chair, for saying it, that 'if you don't play you don't stay'. That can be discrimination if one looks at the situation from the point of view of losing a job. The Government welcomes the comments that have been made. I applaud the honourable member for Balaclava for his sincere approach. Nobody wants to encourage vexatious complaints or the persecution of people by others. I think the objective test set out in the legislation will guarantee that that will not happen. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clause 38 (Educational institutions established for religious purposes). Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(12.01) —by leave-I move: (9) Clause 38, page 22, line 20, after 'creed' insert 'or in accordance with stated principles'. (l0) Clause 38, page 22, at the end of sub-clause (1) add 'or in order to avoid a contravention of those stated principles'. The Government has gone a long way towards meeting the concerns which the Opposition had regarding the application of this legislation to educational institutions established for religious purposes. But we believe that the legislation is still deficient in one major respect. Consequently, at page 22 line 20 of the Bill, after the word 'creed' we wish to insert the phrase 'or in accordance with stated principles'. We wish to make a similar addition at the end of sub-clause (1) by adding the words 'or in order to avoid a contravention of those stated principles'. This would mean that clause 38(1) would read: Nothing in paragraph 14(1)(a) or (b) or 14(2)(c) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person' s sex, marital status or pregnancy in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed or in accordance with stated principles, if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed or in order to avoid a contravention of those stated principles. I know the difficulty Parliamentary Counsel and the Government had in choosing words which were not so wide as to enable people running any institution to say that they had principles, even if they invented them before this Act was proclaimed, which would justify discrimination. I know what that problem was. In fact, the word 'doctrines' was taken at first to be rather more all-embracing than it is. 'Doctrines', in fact, I find has a narrow meaning at least in respect of Catholic schools. So the meaning of the words 'beliefs or teaching of a particular religion or creed' also is narrow although it is broader than the word 'doctrines'. We have some schools in this country which are not strictly religious in the sense that they are not organised or run by a particular religion. They are more ecumenical. Sydney Grammar School is one that is frequently quoted to me. However, there are others but I gather the number is not great. These schools are based on the Judeo-Christian ethic and they have always had longstanding statements of their principles. In that respect they are very similar to the schools which are in fact covered by this clause and by the exemptions to the legislation. We believe that it would be an unnecessary discrimination, and a rather foolish one in principle, for those schools not to be covered by this clause. In practice it may not be a big issue anyway because my impression of the schools that I have been told about is that they are very enlightened and would not in fact engage in discriminatory practices, even in their own self-interest. But that is not really the point at issue. The point is one of principle. It would be a strange situation if such schools were not covered by this, and on our best legal advice they would not be. We believe that the acceptance of the two amendments would rectify that situation without creating such a broad definition that other people, less bona fides, could circumvent the objects of the Bill. So we do very strongly urge that the Government change its mind and accept those amendments. They are put in good faith. They are put on the basis of avoiding an unnecessary discrimination in principle against schools which otherwise, had they had a slightly different charter and had they been called religious schools in the strict sense of having one stated religion, would be covered by the clause as it now stands. We hope that, despite what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said about the Government not accepting any of these amendments, it will in fact accept these. I believe if it did it would be seen by the community as a very sensible decision. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.07) —We cannot assist the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) by accepting an amendment which seeks to expand the formula for discriminating on bases related to doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings by inserting the words 'stated principles'. We think that is going outside the whole concept by giving educational institutions an opportunity to adopt a blanket situation. A large number of stated principles might allow them to discriminate against people on the ground of sex. My notes advise me that such a school would not have to be a religious school, as long as it could show that it was conducted in accordance with the teachings of a religion. The clause as it stands would entitle educational institutions conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed virtually to discriminate in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of people. The exemption as it stands relates to sex, marital status and pregnancy. Moslem schools may have religious objections to women teaching boys over a certain age. All those matters are adequately dealt with. What we are saying is that nothing in the Bill would prevent a school from choosing teachers or other staff on the grounds of philosophical attitudes to education or political beliefs, as long as there is no discrimination on the grounds of sex. I think that sums it up admirably. I do not think we need to worry too much. I think it has been made clear that there is no real objection. This controversy was raised on the grounds that it might affect non-government schools. Everybody agreed that there needs to be some exemption for schools, non -government or government. I think the exemptions are quite adequate. The real emphasis is on the fact that there is not to be discrimination on the basis of sex. I think we need not devote any more time to this issue. If we were to extend this exemption to include 'stated principles' we could well end up with whole series of stated principles which could lead to discrimination on that very issue of sex. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(12.10) —I understand that my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) has indicated his concern about certain grammar schools. I also voice my concern about those schools. In my speech in the second reading debate I indicated my wholehearted support for the legislation. I think it is excellent legislation. But I am concerned about the grammar schools which have an arrangement whereby they are neither religious schools nor state schools. They were established in the latter half of last century with some government provision and a government member on the board of each school, but basically they are kept in existence by subscribers and, of course, by the fees paid by the various boarders or by children attending as day students. One school in my electorate is the Toowoomba Grammar School. It is not a church school and it is not a state school, but it has a long history of tradition. Many of the people who send their children to the school may be of different religions-the father may be a Toowoomba Grammar old boy, an Anglican who married a Catholic and who became a Catholic or a member of any other religion. That school has a very strong religious background. I think it would be against the tradition and the policies of schools such as that one not to have the right to take into consideration the matter of marital status, just as a religious school has. I take the opportunity in this debate to voice my concern about that. I read the Hansard record of the debate in the Upper House on this matter. I certainly will not vote against the Bill on this point, but I would be recreant to the trust that has been placed in me-my concern for people who send their students to those schools-if I did not seek an exemption for those schools, just as religious schools have. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen)-unfortunately I missed his remarks-to take this back to the Government to indicate the concern of certain people about these matters and to see whether even at this very late stage, the amendments moved by my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava can be agreed to. I circulated a specific amendment which was narrower in scope than the amendments moved by the honourable member but in consultation with him I agreed to withdraw it and support his. I just ask the Deputy Prime Minister to take into account the views that we have expressed on what we might term 'other than religious grounds but solid traditional grounds based on a religious point of view'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.13) —I want to reassure the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), as he was not here when I said this earlier, that the school does not have to be a religious school as long as it can show that it is acting in accordance with the teachings of a religion-in other words, if it has a philosophy it will be covered. It will be able to discriminate if it feels that somebody will not adhere to or will object to that philosophy. So I think that aspect is adequately covered. The whole point is that the discrimination is to be in good faith to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents to a religion or creed. I emphasise that it does not have to be a religious school; it can be a school that adopts the tenets, beliefs and teachings of the Judeo-Christian ethic, for example, but it can take adherents of a number of different faiths. When it comes to the employment of people it can discriminate if it feels that somebody who might be employed would cause injury to that susceptibility. I think it is adequately covered in that regard. In other words, the grammar schools would not have a problem. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(12.15) —I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister ( Mr Lionel Bowen) for his assurance. I accept that it overcomes the concern that I had. It is always very rewarding in debates like this when someone with a legitimate point of view and concern can rise and express his concern and then someone like the Deputy Prime Minister explains that the concern would not really stand up in a legislative process. I am most grateful to him for the answer and the assurance he has given. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Adermann, A.E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.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.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, 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.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, 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.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Mr Porter —I seek leave of the Committee to reconsider clauses 28 to 37. Madam Chairman, as you would be aware, at the time the question on those clauses was put, unfortunately a number of honourable members were attending committee meetings. I think they would like their decisions in relation to those amendments recorded. I therefore seek leave of the Committee to reconsider clauses 28 to 37. The CHAIRMAN —When the honourable member for Balaclava called for a division, the Chair had no alternative but to apply Standing Order 193, which reads: A division shall not be proceeded with unless more than one Member has called for a division. If one Member only calls for a division, that Member may inform the Speaker that he wishes his dissent to be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and in Hansard and his dissent shall be so recorded. Standing Order 193 was applied. If it is the wish of the Committee, I am prepared to allow clauses 28 to 37 and amendments Nos 7 and 8 moved by the honourable member for Balaclava to be reconsidered. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Government has no objection, on the understanding that we go to that division forthwith. We accept the explanation that a number of members of the Opposition were attending committees and could not be in the chamber. We can have that vote now. Clauses 28 to 37-by leave-recommitted. The CHAIRMAN —The original question was that clauses 28 to 37 be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Balaclava, by leave, moved his amendments Nos 7 and 8. The immediate question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.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. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hicks, H. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, 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.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 39 to 64-by leave-taken together. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(12.35) —I seek a clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). During the consideration of the Sex Discrimination Bill in the Senate and following that consideration I was contacted by a fairly large number of people in my electorate. I believe their concern is crystallised best if I give the Committee the example of a chemist who, as a matter of conscience, will not stock contraceptives. Some chemists feel, on moral grounds and because of their own conscientious beliefs, that they want to run a chemist' s shop but not stock contraceptives. There are chemists who do, on conscientious grounds, stock contraceptives and make them available to people of different ages. I can readily understand the views of people who advance the argument that chemists should make contraceptives available to people, even people of a relatively young age, because the alternative is that a young person can become pregnant. This can cause great difficulties and even lead to that person having an abortion. But there are chemists who stock these goods and do not make them available to all people. Let us consider the situation of a young looking girl who seeks to obtain contraceptives and the chemist who, as a matter of conscience, says: 'I am not prepared to make a contraceptive product available to a person who is in my opinion obviously under the age when she can give legal consent to sexual intercourse'. It causes concern to many people in my area and me that, unwittingly, the legislation could be used against a chemist who refused to supply contraceptives on the ground that he had discriminated against a person on account of her sex. I am not unattracted to the view that has been expressed to me that the legislation does not allow that person to be challenged or to have action taken against him, because legally that person is not discriminating against someone on the ground of her sex, but on account of her age. I have raised this matter because it is of legitimate concern to me. I was not satisfied with the answers given by the Minister in the Senate. I would appreciate it very much if the Deputy Prime Minister can give me an assurance-I will understand if he cannot-as to whether my interpretation of the Bill is correct; that is, that a chemist placed in that situation would not be proceeded against for the reason that he had not discriminated against a person on the ground of sex but on the ground of age. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.39) —There is no difficulty at all in the issue which the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has raised. He did not have to move an amendment which he had in mind because he felt there was a problem in that area. I can give the honourable member the assurance that this Bill deals with discrimination on the basis of sex. There is no penalty at all if the discrimination is on the basis of age. I believe that satisfies the concerns of the honourable member. In other words, the refusal to sell contraceptives to a person who is too young to legally consent to intercourse is not discrimination. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(12.40) —I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that explanation. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 65 to 77-by leave-taken together. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(12.41) —by leave-I move: (11) Clause 65, page 33, lines 7-10, omit sub-paragraphs (1) (b) (i) and (1) (b ) (ii). (12) Clause 66, page 33, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Inquiries to be held in private ''66. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), an inquiry shall be held in private. ''(2) The Commission may, on the application of the respondent to an inquiry, if it is satisified that its appropriate to do so, direct that an inquiry, or part of an inquiry, be held in public.''. The first amendment relates to clause 65. By it we seek to delete sub-paragraphs (1)(b)(i) and (1)(b)(ii) so that the clause would then read: A party to an inquiry- (a) shall appear personally or, where the party is a body of persons, whether corporate or unicorporate, by an officer, employee or agent of the body; and (b) may be represented by a solicitor or counsel or an agent. We believe, for the reasons canvassed in the Senate, that that more accurately reflects the intention of the provision and is also fairer. It may be argued that the situation would not arise very often, but the sub-heading to this clause in the Bill states: 'Right of appearance and to representation'. Largely because of the apprehensions to which I have referred earlier whereby people have thought that all of a sudden they might be subjected to some sort of interrogation, albeit under the guise of conciliation and albeit very private, it is a new world for them and they ought to have the automatic right of being represented by a solicitor, counsel or agent. It may well be that the agent is a trade union official or an employer organisation official. People ought to have the right to have representation. That right ought not to be dependent upon the Human Rights Commission giving leave or making arrangements which is the situation as the clause now stands. This is quite important not only as a matter of principle but also presentationally. People who are apprehensive for the reasons which I and others in the chamber have canvassed and agreed to earlier are concerned that the Human Rights Commission, of which they know very little, has the power to determine whether they will have representation at proceedings which are to them a real mystery. There is a genuine fear. I urge the Government to make the amendment to which I have referred. Amendment No. 12 relates to clause 66. We seek to omit that clause and substitute another clause which we believe more accurately reflects, again, the intention of the Bill. The interpretation states: 'Inquiries may be held in private'. Yet what we see in the existing clause is: . . . Subject to sub-section (2), an inquiry shall be held in public. Then it goes on to say when an inquiry may be held in private. We have reversed that. Our amendment states: . . . Subject to sub-section (2), an inquiry shall be held in private. . . . The Commission may, on the application of the respondent to an inquiry, if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, direct that an inquiry, or part of an inquiry, be held in public. We believe that is the appropriate way of handling this matter. We agree in both cases with the headings 'Right of appearance and to representation' and ' Inquiries may be held in private', but the way in which clause 66 is worded makes it more difficult to have an inquiry in private and indeed says that an inquiry shall be held in public. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. I shall report progress. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to the honourable gentleman's refusal to make public the forward estimates of next year's deficit . Will the honourable gentleman make those estimates available to the Economic Planning Advisory Committee or are they so illusory and meaningless as not even to be useful for that purpose? Mr KEATING —For a start, it is the Economic Planning Advisory Council, not the Economic Planning Advisory Committee. The Government has indicated to the Council that there will be meaningful discussions in respect of the Budget. We will not go through the charade we had in former years when, after the Budget was all wrapped up, the coalition would invite the business community in and get them to go over their particular requests when, of course, there was no possible opportunity to change the outcome of the Budget. I make the point again because the former Treasurer seems to wish to hammer this point: The fact is that last year it was he who produced the Budget deficit number. It was the former Government which produced it. It was the former Government which made an issue of it in the election campaign and it was the former Government which attacked the proposals of the then Opposition, the Australian Labor Party, about what it could afford to do in the budgetary context of 1983-84. Hence, naturally, when the Government was presented with the no-policy change deficit number of $4 billion in excess of the number which in fact was published by the former Treasurer and the former Prime Minister, of course, in the interests of the public debate and in the clear interests of being able to understand the fiscal position facing the Commonwealth, that deficit number simply had to be published . Mr CUNNINGHAM —I address my question to the Treasurer. Is he able to advise the House whether a review of the operation of the prescribed payments system will be undertaken? If so, what form will the review take? Mr KEATING —The Government did promise a review of the prescribed payments system after six months of its operation. While that six months has passed, in fact we have received about five months of revenue. When the revenue is collected over the six months period and the data is assessed, a review will be conducted by the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office and the Government will consider that review and make an announcement as appropriate. I add also that changes were made over the course of the last six months to simplify the system and make it easier in terms of its implementation and administration. I take this opportunity to indicate how unfounded now are the claims of disaster and disruption that were coming from the Opposition in respect of the prescribed payments system, and also the claim which was made that the Government would be too restrictive in the exemptions and rate variations which it would permit. It is worth recording that by 3 March this year there had been 28,994 exemptions and 98,771 variations. Hence any claim that that was too restrictive is, of course, nonsense. Coupled with that, how simply irresponsible it was of the Opposition to have threatened the disallowance of this system when in fact it has operated as smoothly as it has. I also mention, because it is very interesting, that within three months of the start of the system there were 36,000 requests for new tax file numbers from people who had not previously lodged a taxation return. The system has operated effectively. At this stage it is not producing the revenue yield that the Government predicted it would in the Budget, simply because of the scale of the variations and exemptions. But the review will take place as promised and when appropriate I will make an announcement about it. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the case of the return of an alleged forged passport to one Ramon Sala, a convicted international drug smuggler. Was an application for return of the passport made in 1974 to the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, by a solicitor, Mr Morgan Ryan? Was the present Attorney-General employed in 1974 as a consultant to the then Attorney-General Senator Murphy when the passport was returned to Sala? Did Senator Gareth Evans in his then capacity as a consultant take part in the consideration of the application? Did the police oppose release of the passport? Did Attorney-General Murphy order the return of the passport to Sala and, at the time the Attorney-General Murphy ordered release of the passport, had inquiries been completed in the country which issued the passport? How long after the order was made did Sala leave Australia? Did not the police believe that Sala belonged to a major drug group? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I make it clear that this is a question without notice. My recollection of the position is that I do not know exactly where the Attorney- General was employed in 1974 but we can certainly ascertain that. As regards what is called the Sala case I make it very clear that the gentleman was here on a visitor's visa. This was in 1974. Apparently he was then arraigned and convicted of certain offences which related to drugs and also to infringement of currency regulations and laws. As a result of that he was also taken into custody and it was directed that he be deported. As I understand it, that was some time before he actually left the country. Mr MacKellar —Was the deportation order signed? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I believe it was. He was under deportation and in custody. He was in custody for some two or three weeks, I understand, awaiting deportation. Questions arose as to the validity of his passport, as the honourable gentleman correctly stated. Apparently he had a French passport and was a Spanish national . That was the position. Inquiries were then made through Interpol as to whether the passport was valid. But as he had already been convicted for those other offences, as he had been ordered to be deported and as he was already in custody awaiting deportation, the other question that was put, as I understand it, to the Attorney at that time was that he was a person who had been imprisoned under the Franco regime and had been ill-treated. This statement has been made in the Senate. Representations were made on the basis: Why would he be compulsorily returned to Spain when in fact he had a French passport? Also, if he were to go back to Franco's Spain he might have been in some jeopardy from the point of view of his future. They were the real parameters at the time because the man was in custody and there was no evidence that the passport was fraudulent. As I understand it, the Attorney agreed that his passport would be returned to him on the condition that he forthwith left the country, which he did. Mr Peacock —But didn't the police oppose that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know whether the police opposed it. There is a report from Mr Menzies, who was a very distinguished official of the Attorney-General's Department, but who is no longer in that Department. An opinion was got from him and when he looked through the file he gave a report which clearly indicated that no improper action had been taken by the Attorney in returning the passport to the man to enable him to leave the country and not be deported as such. Mr MacKellar —It allowed him to come back, though, didn't it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This is not novel, as I think the honourable gentleman interjecting would know. A number of people who are facing deportation are allowed to leave the country of their own free will. That is what this man did. I think some six days after he left the country advice was received from Interpol that his passport was, in fact, fraudulent. So Interpol was aware of the situation. I am sure that if that was so, the French authorities also would have been aware of the situation. Mr GAYLER —Is the Special Minister of State aware of the activities of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation in Queensland? How does this Foundation fit with the Government's new legislation which demands public disclosure of campaign donations? Mr YOUNG —Of course, under the new system which has been adopted and made law in Australia, donations to political parties by individuals or companies will be scrutinised by the newly established, independent Commonwealth Electoral Commission. Mr Sinclair —Are you threatening again, Mick? Mr YOUNG —I am threatening only if the right honourable member feels threatened. With respect to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation fund, honourable members who read the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform would be well aware of evidence given before the Committee by the Director of the National Party of Queensland on the way in which money is moved between donors and the National Party in order for it to carry out its multi-million dollar campaigns. The Commission has been given sufficient powers to investigate the books of any political party if it is not satisfied with the returns given by those political parties following the next national election. To some extent we are aware that people may be setting up front organisations. Laws in the United States have been to some extent circumvented by the setting up of front organisations to work on behalf of candidates or businessmen for the return of Democrat candidates, or whatever the party may be in the United States . The same thing may be occurring here through such establishments as the Bjelke -Petersen Foundation fund or the person who in conservative forces appears to have put as his objective becoming the next leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Elliott. He seems to have set up this 500 Club, in which he is going to ask for $500 from 500 businessmen in order that he can propel himself into the leadership of the Liberal Party. If such organisations are carrying out the legitimate aims for which they were set up and if they are not interfering with the electoral processes, they have no need to worry. But if they are trying by some means to circumvent the laws which have been established in Australia and to push money into political parties of whatever persuasion-the conservative parties, the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Democrats-the Electoral Commission will have sufficient power to look at the books of those parties to make sure everything that is done is above board. Mr STEELE HALL —I direct my question, which concerns the Sala case, to the Deputy Prime Minister. Was there an inquiry in 1974 into the circumstances in which the order of the Attorney-General to return Sala's passport came to be made? If so, by whom was the inquiry conducted? Will the Deputy Prime Minister state whether a comprehensive file was completed on this matter? Does it still exist? If not, when was it destroyed? If it does exist, where is it and will the Deputy Prime Minister table it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let me make it very clear: I am not aware of any inquiry in 1974 . Accordingly, I am not aware of any file that might have existed and been subsequently destroyed. Mr Peacock —Perhaps you could ask the Attorney to ask the police. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am quite happy to ask the Attorney about the honourable gentleman's question. But in view of the fact that we lost government in 1975, I would have thought the Opposition would have had access to some of this information. Mr Peacock —We did not go back into the files of other governments. We abide by the conventions. We did not go back into the files of other governments. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I remind honourable members that they are only being filmed; sound is not being recorded. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not anxious to get too much of the camera, either. The point I make is that at the moment I am not aware of any inquiry. The honourable gentleman must have some information that it was in fact made. If so, I would welcome further information as to who conducted the inquiry and what was its basis. It virtually destroys the objection now made by the Leader of the Opposition. If there was an inquiry it is pretty obvious that somebody in the successive governments from 1975 would have known about it. Mr Peacock —Those files were not made available at the change of government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are talking about the inquiry that would have been made. Who would have made the inquiry is the point. It strikes me as being rather extraordinary that the Attorney-General in 1974 arranged for an inquiry and then arranged for its destruction. I cannot imagine the situation. But if the honourable gentleman has some further information that would help to identify the mysterious document, which is now, what, 10 years old-that shows the validity of what the Opposition is about today; it is 10 years behind-I will do the best I can to answer the question. Mr BILNEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. I preface my question by expressing my appreciation of the efficacy of the arrangements which have been made to introduce the Medicare scheme, including in my electorate of Kingston. Given the flexibility of the scheme and the flexibility which the Minister has used in introducing it, I ask him: Is he aware that a number of people would wish to obtain receipts for cash payments when they get a refund from Medicare? If that is so, is he able to outline to the House what arrangements he has made to give effect to that wish? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the issue raised by the honourable member for Kingston. Let me first of all explain to the House why we made the decision not to return account documents. The first reason for that is simply that the opportunities for account manipulation which have been identified in the past would not be possible if the documents were not retained. The second reason is that we need to have an effective pursuit of fraud and overservicing. As previous Health Ministers know, there are difficulties if those documents are not retained. A third reason is that we desired to have in our Medicare offices the most efficient claim turnover and payment system possible. Again, that was facilitated by not providing receipts and by not returning these documents. However, there were clear protections introduced for people in such cases. First, we arranged with the Australian Taxation Office that everybody could claim from Medicare at the end of the financial year a full printout of all their payments and this would be acceptable to the Taxation Office when people made their claims. Secondly, if people did not want to have a cash payment they could, of course, have a cheque and the attachment to that cheque is acceptable to the Taxation Office for taxation claims. Nevertheless, I recognised that despite those protections there was still some anxiety about this issue. Last week we instructed the Health Insurance Commission to provide receipts to cash claimers who requested them. A notice to that effect will be put in Medicare offices. I hope within a fortnight those receipts will be available with cash claims. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister and it relates to the gravity of the allegations made against Mr Justice Murphy and others. As the Government will not accept the Opposition's call for a royal commission-- Government members interjecting- Mr PEACOCK —If the Government really wanted the truth it would follow our call and would follow the Constitution. The Constitution is quite clear as to what course of action ought to be taken. It is this Parliament that deals with it. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will proceed with his question. Honourable members will cease interjecting. The Chair has to give very serious consideration to the question being asked because of the Standing Orders of the House and I want to be able to hear the question. Mr PEACOCK —The question relates to the gravity of the allegations made against Mr Justice Murphy and others. As the Government will not accept the Opposition's call for a royal commission, will the Prime Minister support the establishment of a joint select committee of the Parliament to inquire into and report on the allegations to enable the Parliament to meet its constitutional requirements on the basis that the inquiry not commence until after the holding of the New South Wales State election? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, at last they have been forced out. We have witnessed in this country in the last few days the most despicable behaviour imaginable on the part of any opposition. The Opposition went through last week being simon- pure. That was not good enough. This week what do we have? We have an exhibition where the Leader of the Opposition was either engaged in duplicity or was not the Leader of the Opposition because he talked to the Press and said: 'Of course , we would not bring out the name of the judge'. While he was saying that, the honourable member for Boothby in this House identified the judge. The Leader of the Opposition was either lying to the media or had no control over the members of his Opposition. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Only one man in the past two days has lied in this Parliament, and that is the Prime Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is an increasing practice in the House for members to accuse one another of lying. This is unparliamentary language. I ask that honourable members do not use that language. I call the Leader of the Opposition on his point of order. Mr Peacock —The point of order is that when the honourable member for Boothby made that statement the other day, I was in the chamber and was with him. I heard it. I was not at a Press conference. I held the Press conference subsequently. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —The point is that the Prime Minister as usual places more reliance on what is written about the Parliament than what actually transpires. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition that, while because of his position he receives tolerance from the Chair, he should not abuse that tolerance. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —We then move from the position of the devious activities of Opposition members in this place to their allowing their colleagues in another institution to descend even further into the gutter which they have occupied so conspicuously this week. I made quite clear in the House yesterday the position in regard to the constitutional division of power between the Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary. Let me remind the House today, but before I do I pick up the phraseology used by the Leader of the Opposition in his question. I have noted his words. He referred to 'the gravity of the allegations' against the judge. Where are these allegations? Mr Hodgman —They are in the tapes that you would not listen to. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —We get the answer by way of interjection. When I asked: 'Where are these allegations, the gravity of which is alluded to?', the honourable member for Denison says: 'They are in the tapes'. Mr Hodgman —Which you won't listen to. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr HAWKE —So out of the mouth of the honourable member for Denison this despicable scenario is again being made clear. The law of this country was broken in the taking of unauthenticated tapes, involving a gross invasion of the privacy of individuals. On that basis the Opposition, now endorsed by the honourable member for Denison, says: 'That is where we have the gravity of the allegations'. Let every member of this country understand the standards of decency of Opposition members. It is saying that where one has a breaking of the law, unauthenticated tapes, a gross invasion of privacy, that involves grave allegations and this Parliament should drag into the chamber the reputations of decent Australians. I repeat: That is the situation that the Opposition wants to establish. As I have said, the Opposition has been universally branded now as an opposition totally incapable of discharging the normal obligations of an opposition. It is incapable of either examining the policies of the Government or putting up policies of its own. It is universally condemned as incompetent. Now it wants to establish a standard in this place, so that the Parliament, as a result of the Opposition's incompetence in discharging the normal functions of an opposition, will have to say of those illegal operations, unauthenticated tapes and invasions of privacy, that there are grave allegations. Do honourable members opposite mean that every time there is a breaking of the law or an invasion of the privacy of citizens on the telephones of this country they will say that the right course for this Parliament is to say: 'Yes, grave allegations are involved in that illegal action and we will immediately move'? I remind the House-- Mr Peacock —You have a duty to protect the public. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition offends again. Mr Peacock —You have a duty to protect the public and that overrides privacy and privilege. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HAWKE —I will remind the House of what I told it yesterday, but I will preface that by saying that this Government will neither confirm nor deny the names of anyone involved in the tapes and the transcripts. I believe there are still some honourable members left on the other side of the House, and I remind them that the legal opinions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, and the Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith, demonstrate that judicial misbehaviour as used in the Constitution involves either matters pertaining to a person's performance as a judge in his judicial office or criminal misconduct which would make it inappropriate for a judge to stay in office. That is the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solicitor-General. As I told the House yesterday, there is no suggestion of the first condition applying, while opinions from the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales Solicitor- General, and Mr Temby have indicated that no criminal misconduct by the judge would be indicated in the facts revealed by the tapes and the transcripts, even if they were authenticated, which they are not. As there is absolutely nothing which could justify a substantive motion by the Parliament on this subject, there is no conceivable basis on which any action of the sort suggested by the Leader of the Opposition should be taken. I also remind the House that other matters raised by the tapes are being investigated vigorously and competently. The Director of Public Prosecutions is supervising investigations by a joint New South Wales-Australian Federal Police investigating team charged with bringing prosecutions for any breaches of federal law which may be revealed. I also remind the House that relevant material has been forwarded to Mr Justice Stewart and to Special Prosecutor Redlich. The position is quite clear. Honourable members on the other side of the House are suggesting-look at the hypocrisy of what is involved-that they are interested in protecting proper standards of behaviour, that the behaviour of a judge is in question. In terms of going to a question of proper standards of behaviour, this Opposition is following a course of behaviour which can only bring it into contempt. If this Parliament were minded to go down this course it would only bring the Parliament into contempt. I say finally that the public of Australia will judge, and will judge harshly, an Opposition which without question is trying to establish-I again remind the House and the people of Australia of just what this Opposition is trying to do- because it has no positive case in respect of the actions of this Government, which has acted expeditiously and with total propriety on this matter-- Mr Sinclair —What are you squibbing it for, Hawke? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite are seeking to establish a McCarthyist position in this country whereby the conversations of private citizens on the telephone can be tapped illegally and then, on the basis of an illegal tapping they will seek to say: 'Those are grave allegations involving the breaking of the law; let us move'. What we have done, with total propriety, is this: Immediately these matters came to the attention of the Attorney-General they were referred, as they should have been, to the Australian Federal Police. They were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the Solicitor-General. What the Opposition is saying now is that the Government having followed that course of action, which is a totally proper way of ensuring that the privileges and rights of this Parliament are not going to be abused in the way the Opposition would wish, as they were in regard to Mr Justice Cross, it does not believe that one can rely on the Australian Federal Police. It is saying that one cannot rely on Mr Temby, that one cannot rely on the Solicitor-General. First of all it was 'Attack Mr Justice Cross'. Now it is 'Attack the Solicitor-General'. Honourable members opposite can do all the attacking that they like. The end result will be that they will go further down, if that is possible, in the estimation of the people of Australia. Mrs DARLING —Does the Special Minister of State propose to take any action on the allegations made in the Queensland Parliament by the Queensland Minister for Transport? Mr YOUNG —It is not the intention-- Mr Sinclair —I take a point of order. The Minister has no responsibility for the Queensland Parliament. I suggest that the question is out of order. Mr SPEAKER —I think the matter refers to a police investigation. The Special Minister of State is concerned with the Australian Federal Police. Mr Sinclair —That was not the question. Mr YOUNG —You can read it in. This Government does not intend to add any dignity to the comments made yesterday in the Queensland Parliament by the Minister for Transport, Mr Lane, who is commonly known in Queensland, as I understand it from Mr Moore, as Shady Lane. Mr Lane has been a member of a number of parties. There seems to be something wrong with the mentality of people who keep changing parties. I notice that the honourable member for Boothby has been in more parties than was Billy Hughes. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Special Minister to get to his answer. Mr YOUNG —It is interesting to connect what happened in the Queensland Parliament previously with the statements made by Mr Lane yesterday. Mr Sinclair —It has nothing to do with your responsibility. Mr YOUNG —It has something to do with my responsibility. How do we know how Mr Lane is able to verify names that are on the tapes? Does Mr Lane have the tapes? Mr Sinclair —They are your tapes, are they? They are not Federal Police tapes, Mick? Mr YOUNG —I think the Leader of the National Party has them because he could not help himself picking them up if he saw them somewhere. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Special Minister of State, in answering the question, to help preserve order in the House. It has been a very black day for the House in respect of behaviour. Mr YOUNG —It is necessary to make some comment on what was done yesterday in the Queensland Parliament. It is not our intention to take any action in relation to this, or to add dignity to what occurred yesterday in the Queensland Parliament, but it is interesting to relate it to what happened in the Queensland Parliament previously on this question. I refer to Queensland Hansard of 9 December 1975, when a one-day sitting of the Parliament was called just prior to the election in that year. The Queensland Premier said: As a member of the Australian Loan Council, I saw it as my duty to have such inquiries made on my behalf. The reference is to loans. He continued: Those inquiries have now been made. As a result, I am in possession of considerably more material, which satisfies me that I was completely justified in having those inquiries carried out. In one deal alone, it is now clear that two Ministers of the Whitlam Government, together with a number of other people, were due to receive staggering sums of money as a consequence of secret commissions and kick-backs. I invite honourable members to look at the interjection by Mr Hinze: Murphy will be a surfie by the time we're finished with him. So the campaign goes on. From the end of 1975, when Justice Murphy of the High Court of Australia was Senator Murphy, comments were being made in the Queensland Parliament that the Queensland conservatives, the Nationals, intended to get him; so there is no fluke involved. Let us look at Mr Lane's activities this year. He switched from the Liberal Party to the National Party after the election to retain his ministry. To whom does he owe a debt now? He owes it to the Queensland Premier. When he was called upon yesterday to deliver the goods he was not afraid to get up and name people because he owed that debt to the Queensland Premier. I ask honourable members opposite to listen to the honourable member from Bass when he makes his personal explanation after Question Time, because they can all find themselves in the position in which Mr Lane put citizens of this country yesterday. Mr Lane does not happen to have a very happy background. He was the person who, according to reliable sources in Queensland, was responsible for condemning the late Mr Justice Douglas and preventing him from becoming Chief Justice of Queensland. Mr SPEAKER —I do ask the Special Minister of State to round off his answer. He is ranging rather widely. Mr YOUNG —I was about to conclude, Mr Speaker. One of Mr Lane's more momentous achievements in the Queensland police force, in which he served before he became a member, was the arrest of a man in Brisbane on a charge of using obscene language. It was subsequently discovered that the man was deaf and dumb. Now, since Mr Lane has changed his Party, they have changed his name from Shady Lane to Changing Lane. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is too late now, but what the Minister has just done I believe completely transgresses Standing Orders. Mr HUNT —I ask the Minister who represents the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied that absence of criminal or constitutionally improper behaviour is, on its own, adequate criterion for determining the suitability of a person to occupy high judicial office or whether there are other standards of behaviour also to be met? Will the Minister ask the Attorney-General to consult with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia on the question of whether Mr Justice Murphy should stand down from the Bench until doubts about his suitability for high judicial office are resolved? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think this is an outrageous question. It certainly contravenes standing order 75 of this House in that in the thrust of the question there is an inference that there is some validity in the charges made by the honourable member who asked the question. He well knows that all information made available to the Government-- Mr Sinclair —Has not been provided to the Parliament. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —was given to the Solicitor-General. I do not want any help from the right honourable member. That would be the last thing I would want. It was given to the Solicitor-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was said that there was no evidence at all that would justify any accusation that is now being made. There is no point at all in discussing the matter with the Chief Justice. The issue is the question of misbehaviour as defined under section 72. That is the issue. Mr Peacock —That is the one the Prime Minister puts down. He won't even entertain it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If we could just get the honourable member to concentrate on the issue. Mr Peacock —You have to know that that is the fundamental one, and you are right in raising it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The fundamental issue is, of course, that there is nobody able to come forward with any evidence. We have a thing called a tape and we have something called a transcript that was made by somebody. Of course, the person who made it has already breached the Telecommunications (Interception) Act and is liable to penalties of imprisonment and fine. So perhaps that is the reason why some honourable members opposite do not want to come forward. However, on the question of proof, if in fact somebody did the interception, that person would be able to give evidence. So where is that person? Why can we not find that person? Mr McGauran —You have had four months to find them. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Look, honourable members opposite have had them for four months and they could be in their cohorts over there. The Opposition adopts the outrageous position of using somebody in the Queensland Parliament to name a member of the High Court. Today it compounded the same detraction by naming the person again with not one tittle of evidence as to the validity of the tape or the validity of the transcript. There are people, obviously-perhaps Bob Bottom knows them-who did this action. They exist, and that is where the Opposition wants to get its evidence from. Mr HAND —I direct my question, which regards policy and not gutter talk, to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Can the Minister inform the House of any action taken by the Government to assist the East Timorese to obtain reunion with their families in Australia following the continuing strife in their own country? Mr WEST —The Government has been continually concerned to effect the ongoing family reunion of people from East Timor. Already 5,000 people from East Timor have been successfully resettled in Australia. Following representations from our Foreign Minister, the Government has pressed for the conclusion of the list- cases of some 600 for family reunion in Australia from Indonesia and East Timor. Due to the efforts of the Foreign Minister and this Government some 61 persons from East Timor of the list-cases have effected family reunion in Australia since last April. There are in fact only two cases left on the list. However, there is another group of people from East Timor that the Government is now addressing. They are people who left East Timor for Portugal and countries other than Australia since 1975. This is a rather complex situation that the Government is anxious to bring to a successful conclusion. Back in October 1980 the previous Government established a special humanitarian program for East Timorese who were resident outside East Timor, for example in Portugal, Taiwan or Macao. But that Government set a cutoff point for eligibility for family reunion to Australia from such countries as Portugal. That cutoff point was 30 September 1980. Some 2,400 people have reached Australia under the special humanitarian program. However, the result of that decision was twofold. Firstly, it established a program of a special nature outside the usual parameters of the special humanitarian program, that is, we were accepting people who had been successfully settled in a third country. Obviously, we cannot let that go on forever. Secondly, the decision to establish an arbitrary line of 30 September 1980 really rules quite unfairly against people who have reached Portugal since that date. The fact is that the previous Government only went half way and left an ongoing anomaly. Therefore, in order both to wind up the anomalous nature of this program and, further, to give justice to all of the East Timorese who fled East Timor in 1975, the Government has decided to advance the 30 September 1980 cutoff line so that East Timorese in third countries with a family reunion connection as at 29 February 1984 have six months to be sponsored from Australia under the special humanitarian program and a further six months to finalise movement to Australia. That will wind up an anomalous situation and at the same time give justice to all East Timorese who went to Portugal and other countries after 1975. At the conclusion of this specified period of one year all East Timorese will then have their claims considered within the provisions of the normal migration program. This would include family reunion and the special humanitarian program while the normal family reunion criteria and independent migration procedures would apply to those East Timorese with resident status in other countries. In conclusion, what we are doing, of course, is winding up an anomalous situation regarding East Timorese presently in Portugal and bringing all East Timorese, wherever they may be, including those people now in East Timor, into a normal refugee and family migration situation. This will depend on ongoing negotiations with the Indonesian Government. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government Personal Income Tax Sharing Act 1976, I present the report of the State Grants Commission, Tasmania 1983-84 which contains recommendations for the distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual councils by the State Grants Commission, Tasmania. Payments to Tasmania were made on 8 September 1983 by the Treasury. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Education Research Act 1970, I present the Education Research and Development Committee annual report for 1982-83. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr NEWMAN —Yes, Mr Speaker. In a publication of 6 March-I will not mention the name because I do not want to dignify the publication with that attribute-there was an article published on this so-called tapes affair, and under the headline: 'Will Tape Cover-up Last Until After State Elections', the following two paragraphs appear: The tapes were handed to the former Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Sir Colin Woods in 1980. Woods took the tapes to the former Minister responsible for police Kevin Newman. At the highest political level it was decided not to investigate the tapes further, although copies were sent to the Stewart Royal Commission. Mr Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that these assertions are false. The former commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Sir Colin Woods, never handed me these tapes, or indeed any other tapes, of intercepted telephone calls . Having said that it follows that the second paragraph I referred to is also false. Mr SPEAKER —I have received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated the honourable member for Tangney, Mr Gear, to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in place of Mr Reeves. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-On 18 May 1983, I outlined in this Parliament an immigration intake for 1983-84 involving categories of family reunion, labour shortage and business migration, special eligibility and refugees. I said that this Australian Labor Party Government would give priority to family reunion and refugees. This reflected our view that in times of economic recession our first commitment would be to honour responsibilities to those migrants already in Australia, to honour international obligations and to accept that humanitarian considerations applied to both these areas. The former Government had given priority to migration which filled alleged labour shortages within Australia. Under the framework outlined above, I foreshadowed a migration intake made up as follows: family migration between 51,000-57,000; independent and occupations in demand, lowering a number of categories up to 13,000; and refugees between 18 ,000-20,000. In 1982-83, under the program initiated by the former Government, the actual intake was 27,000 family migration; 17,000 refugees and special humanitarian programs; 32,000 for labour shortage and business migration; 6,490 independent migrants; and 570 special eligibility, making a total of approximately 83,000 arrivals. The changes introduced by this Government were intended to reduce migration based upon alleged labour shortage; that is, persons very likely without family in Australia, and to increase family migration. I also said that there would be a diversification of countries from which refugees would be accepted. This diversification was based on a recognition of the many migrant groups represented in our society, the concern these groups have for people affected by strife in their home countries and Australia's basic humanitarian objectives. I also said visa free entry under the trans-Tasman travel arrangements would continue. I have just completed a half-yearly review of the program, and will now detail emerging trends and developments that will affect the outcome of this year's program. The forward estimates are substantially correct, except for family reunion, under special category C; that is brothers, sisters, and non-dependent children. Information now available shows that numbers admitted under this category will be fewer than anticipated. I now expect that not more than 16,000 will be visaed under this category. Family reunion numbers under categories A and B should be much as predicted; that is up to 27,000, giving a family migration result for 1983-84 of up to 43, 000 visaed arrivals. Approximately 17,000 should be admitted under our refugee and special humanitarian program and 10,000-11,000 in occupations in demand and business migration. Total intake for 1983-84 should be approximately 70,000. The emerging change on forward assessments is specifically in category C; that is brothers, sisters and non-dependent children, with very sound reasons for this change. There has been a lessening interest amongst permanent residents and Australian citizens towards sponsoring family members from Europe and the United Kingdom. This is not a surprising development. Many of the migrants have been in Australia for a long time with many immediate family members already here. Prospective migrants are sensitive to changing economic conditions both here and in their own countries. For example, those who are already gainfully employed in their homelands must measure the relative merits of family reunion against their prospects in Australia. There is evidence that many such people, possibly contrary to the expectations of their sponsoring families in Australia, are opting to remain at home or to defer the decision to migrate. In illustrating this, as a percentage total sponsorships from July to December 1983, 9.3 per cent related to United Kingdom and Eire, 1.4 per cent to Poland, 0 .8 per cent to Greece, 0.8 per cent to Italy, 1.7 per cent to Yugoslavia and 9.5 per cent to all other European countries. European sponsorships total 23.4 per cent of the total sponsorships for that half year. This compares with Lebanon with 5.8 per cent, and a Middle East total of 13.3 per cent. The comparative figures from Asia, to give some examples, were 2.9 per cent Philippines, 13.4 per cent Sri Lanka and 25.8 per cent to other Asian countries, including the orderly departure program from Vietnam. In addition, many sponsorships were not taken up by sponsored relatives in Europe. These figures are as high as 60 per cent in Athens, 25 per cent in Rome, and 30 per cent in Belgrade. We are still requiring offers of employment to be made for prospective category C migrants. This can create a problem for potential family reunion applicants. It is also difficult to check job offers and to monitor take-up rates. The alternative would be simply to delete this requirement and accept higher migrant unemployment and associated settlement problems. My Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is presently reviewing the effectiveness of the job offer requirement. During April 1984, a survey of 300 migrants under the job offer arrangement will be conducted. I hope this will allow for more informed decisions to be made on the job offer requirement for the 1984-85 intake. In the interim, and for the remainder of the 1983-84 year, the Government will maintain the requirement for arranged employment for category C migrants. Job offers are not required for spouses, refugees or migrants under special humanitarian programs. Given that there is a reduction in sponsorships, as outlined, and the fact that some people are still, even with a job offer, not achieving enough points under the points assessment system, I have given consideration to reducing educational or skill standards and/or giving more points to older persons. However, on balance the Government feels that the changes made to the points assessment systems last May have already significantly moderated previous bias in favour of highly skilled, English-speaking, youthful and affluent migrants. The option of a further relaxation of the points assessment system would have the effect of increasing numbers of semi-skilled or unskilled persons, many of them elderly, seeking to enter Australia. This would have to be carefully assessed, even in a period of economic recovery and reducing unemployment. Nevertheless, the Government repudiates ill-informed criticism that it has not honoured its family reunion undertakings. It has clearly done so and will continue to do so. Under the previous Government, family migration fell from a forward estimate for 1982-83 of 44,000 to only 27,000. I envisage now after the half-yearly review that family reunion in 1983-84 in all categories will, from a maximum forward estimate of 57,000, be between 38,000 and 43,000 visaed migrants. Mr Cadman —We told you you would not meet the targets. Mr WEST —We are pretty much more on target than the former Government was the previous year. It is difficult, for the reasons I have enunciated, to stay with forward estimates. They are not targets, they are ceilings, by the way, as the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), and the former Ministers would know. This figure of up to 43,000 visaed migrants in family reunion categories is a significant increase over family reunion migration in 1982-83. Our refugee and special humanitarian programs have been diversified, as foreshadowed in my first statement on Australia's immigration program. In 1982- 83 27 per cent of the program was other than Asian. This year the non-Asian component will be around 40 per cent. That is as a result of the diversification of source countries. In 1982-83, 16,294 refugees and 760 under the special humanitarian program entered Australia. A total of 12,435 of the refugees were from Indo-China; the orderly departure or family reunion program from Vietnam totalled 550. In 1983-84 there should be 10,000 Indo-Chinese refugees, with an additional emphasis on orderly departure from Vietnam; that is up to 2,000. Other changes are: From Latin America from 50 in 1982-83 up to 1,300 in 1983-84; a moderate reduction in the Eastern European refugee program where applications have fallen off; also, humanitarian entry has been applied or extended to include the Lebanon, Sri Lanka, East Timor and the Middle East, including Christian Assyrians from Athens and Rome. These actions have, on the one hand, answered anxieties in the Australian community and, on the other hand, strengthened Australia's reputation as a pace setter in humanitarian efforts world wide. Given all these factors, there is one charge levelled by a prejudiced minority and supported by the Opposition which I should now completely repudiate; that is , that this Government is discriminating against Europeans and citizens of the United Kingdom. Further, some groups in Australia assert that we are downgrading European migration in favour of Asians. Here I must question the honesty of these charges and assertions which talk about migration in unacceptably racial terms. Firstly some facts. There is no discrimination evident in any part or aspect of Australia's immigration program. The Government has assiduously worked to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of race, sex or religious persuasions. The Asian percentage of the total migration program is rising but this is not as a result of any discrimination. It is a natural outcome of the factors I have just alerted honourable members to; that is, lessening interest in sponsorships from migrants in traditional source countries, the growing diversification of our refugee program and the strong priority given by this and recent Australian governments to the reunion of families, particularly those in tragic circumstances of war and civil strife. To allege that this is discrimination is a vicious, destructive and irresponsible misrepresentation of what this Government and its predecessor have done. I remind the House that it was our conservative predecessors who first involved Australia in Vietnam, quite incorrectly, but then correctly commenced the current Indo-Chinese refugee program. The massive exodus of Indo-Chinese from Vietnam which commenced in the late 1970s saw huge numbers of refugees arriving in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and a small number of direct arrivals in Australia. The international community responded to the needs of these people by undertaking resettlement programs for people who could not hope to return to their homelands. It is widely accepted that long term residence in refugee camps is the least desirable solution to such problems. These problems in South East Asia were, of course, complicated by the addition of Laotian and Khmer refugees to the already huge task of coping with the mass exodus of Vietnamese. Australia and the international community has responded to the plight of all of these people through co-ordinated programs of protection, resettlement and financial assistance. Whilst humanitarian considerations dictate that resettlement is still necessary, this Government maintains strongly that solutions must be found to the cause of mass population movements in South East Asia. This Labor Government has also consistently said that the top priority is to achieve a situation where Vietnamese, Lao and Khmers presently in camps in South East Asia could confidently return to their homelands. We are also supporting a widening of the orderly departure or family reunion program from Vietnam as an alternative to illegal departures. Because of these goals I attended inter-governmental consultations in Honolulu last year involving the United States of America, Canada, Japan and Australia. I then visited Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, where I stressed that resettlement alone was not the answer. On behalf of the Government, I stressed the need for voluntary repatriation to countries of origin and orderly departure from Vietnam, and for increased involvement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to implement these aims. I found substantial support among resettlement countries and also from the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations in the region. I have recently participated in discussions in Canberra with Mr Poul Hartling, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who visited Australia as a guest of government from 15 to 21 February last. It has been established that the voluntary repatriation of Lao refugees has resumed to the extent that during 1983 some 600 have been repatriated. That is a very significant step towards achieving a lasting solution to the refugee problems of South East Asia. Mr Hartling particularly welcomed this Government's move to a global approach in responding to refugee needs, an approach which reflects the broad aims of the office of the UNHCR. The Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, and I will further stress the refugee policies of the Australian Government, including our interest in voluntary repatriation and the orderly departure program, when the Foreign Ministers of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Thailand visit Australia in the near future. So we have moved from a simple resettlement policy to a policy which seeks a variety of long term solutions to a complex problem. This Government does not accept criticism regarding Asianisation of our migration or refugee programs. I repeat: This Government is moderately reducing the Indo-Chinese refugee intake from the camps in ASEAN countries whilst increasing direct family reunion from Vietnam and continually searching for alternatives to resettlement. We thus act to maintain our international humanitarian commitments whilst simultaneously seeking stability within our region. I urge the Opposition immigration spokesman and his Leader to refrain from any misrepresentation of complex policies which they themselves commenced and which we are continually modifying and widening as we seek to honour both our regional and global humanitarian responsibilities. I urge the Opposition not to lend its support to any possible emerging anti-Asian racism within Australia. Attacks suggesting that we are discriminating against British and European settlers are often barely concealed racism. Through its generous and wholehearted response to the claims of Indo-Chinese refugees and migration sponsors, the Australian community and successive Governments have laid to rest for ever any remnants of a White Australia image which used to damage us internationally. We must not reverse this process. I also urge the Opposition to avoid being used by minority opinion in Australia which begrudges our helping Indo-Chinese refugees and their separated families. Such attitudes undermine Australia's established reputation as a refugee receiving country. Nothing could be more damaging to our current good relations with ASEAN and our regional standing than to unilaterally and suddenly withdraw from the Indo-Chinese refugee program. This would undermine the carefully developed understanding within the international community on how best to deal with refugee problems in our region and elsewhere. Last March an election was fought and won on the issue of divisiveness within the Australian community created by the former Government's policies. We must ask ourselves whether it is responsible to conduct the immigration debate using arguments about how many people from particular racial groups should settle in Australia in any one program year. This is language calculated to divide the community and I and the Government reject it. Mr Hodgman —You are being very provocative. Mr WEST —I am not being provocative. I repeat: There is no discrimination against British or European settlers by this Government. However, nor will we turn our backs on the Asian region. An increasing percentage of the total migration intake consists of Asians. That is a direct result of refugee policy. Those people then have family reunion rights. It is also a direct result of the lessening of interest, the lessening of sponsorship, from within Australia relating to the old traditional countries, for the reasons I have enunciated. Certainly the result of all this is an increasing Asian percentage but that is not evidence of discrimination against Britain or Europe and it is not evidence of a deliberate Asianisation of the program. Last May I foreshadowed less reliance on migration of skilled workers and more emphasis on the training and retraining of Australians. I said-this is an important change-that the current system of selecting skilled migrants according to an occupational demand schedule, which is compiled half yearly, needed revision. The occupational demand schedule we inherited had limited capacity to cater for future demand, and was based on past labour shortages. Lags in processing, visa issue and travel arrangements often resulted in jobs allegedly in demand six months previously, not being available when the migrant arrived. Although these occupations in alleged demand have been reduced from approximately 80 categories a little more than a year ago to 13 today, the system is still unsatisfactory. I said that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and I would look for alternatives to overseas recruitment of skilled workers based on a total labour force planning system. It will have the twin purpose of filling short term shortages and, in the long term, reducing our reliance on skilled migrants. It will involve integrating for the first time Australian labour planning, education and immigration policies. The new procedures are currently being developed, and are expected to apply from the beginning of the 1984-85 financial year. The system will involve a forward assessment of labour requirements in the approximately 60 major skilled occupations, in which international migration has recently played a significant role. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations will provide an annual report on skilled labour market needs from which a ceiling of occupational annual shares will be set for skilled migration purposes. These ceilings will be reassessed half yearly by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, with quarterly consultations between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations will also, where long term changes in the balance of educational effort are required, be in a position to advise the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's triennial planning process. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations also expects to use the recently announced review of Commonwealth labour market programs as a basis for developing and improving flexibility in training and retraining systems. The new strategy is to cover short term shortages and, in the long term, change the balance between domestic and overseas skilled labour supply to the benefit of workers within Australia. Honourable members will see what the Government is trying to do there. The present labour shortage and business migration category will be retitled 'the skilled labour and business migration program,' and the present occupation in demand category will be retitled 'skilled labour'. Since only 5,000-6,000 migrants will be admitted under the current occupational demand system in 1983-84 involving only 2,000-2,500 workers, it is probable that in 1984-85 as we implement the occupational share system, independent skilled labour migration could increase. However, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I foreshadowed, long term planning is to reduce reliance on skilled labour migration, by using a totally integrated labour market planing approach involving forward planning by the departments of Employment and Industrial Relations, Education and Youth Affairs and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is proposed to review the current employment scheme and temporary entry arrangements to ensure that requirements of employers are strictly applied, and that temporary entry is not used to bypass permanent entry controls. Nevertheless, I anticipate that employer nomination could be important in temporarily providing employment for skilled workers, on whom the development of industry and the employment of other local workers could be dependent. The Government will continue to support business migration provided the project is viable, provides permanent employment and/or new industries and technologies, and the proposer intends to reside permanently in Australia. Mr Speaker, I have outlined again our migration program and informed the House of the latest emerging trends. I have explained how our expanded family reunion policy is being implemented, how our refugee and special humanitarian program is being diversified and, in particular, I have refuted misinformed claims of discrimination against European and UK citizens. I have explained briefly our proposed new system of selecting and admitting skilled labour, and indicated that this Government welcomes business migration if it is to Australia's benefit and creates permanent employment. This is an enlightened, forward-looking humanitarian and internationally accepted program. It is supported by our ASEAN neighbours. The orderly departure program has the support of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I believe these achievements are significant. As well as implementing our own policies, we have refined, changed where necessary, moderated and diversified the programs we inherited from the previous Government. In many areas there is continuity; in others, there is change. The Government is continuing this mix of internationally accepted policies, recognising that Australia is a multicultural society, and that migrants are free to retain cultural links with their home countries while benefiting from their rights to goverment services and programs in Australia, without discrimination. I present the following paper: Migration Program 1983-84-Ministerial Statement, 7 March 1984. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Denison speaking for a period not exceeding 28 minutes. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(3.21) —The statement of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) is a last ditch-probably it will be his last chance before the next Federal election-defence of a government whose immigration policies are an absolute disaster, and he knows it. Whilst later in my address I will compliment the Minister on one or two matters where I believe his action should be supported by all Australians, I have to say that the Government recognises that its immigration policies are an absolute disaster; they are in a terrible mess. The statement was presented this afternoon because the people of Australia are making their views known to the Government. I have said it before and I will say it again: The radical and dangerous turn to the Left which has occurred in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs since the Hawke socialist Government came to power is not accepted by the people of Australia. Mark my words, it will cost the Government dearly at the next Federal election. Secondly, I have to say again that notwithstanding the sophistry of the Minister in his statement this afternoon he has failed to persuade me and, I suggest, the people of Australia that he is not pursuing immigration policies which are, without doubt, anti-British and anti-European in their bias. Thirdly, by the Minister's own admission he has politicised the one thing which was non- political in immigration and ethnic affairs, namely, the refugee intake. Year after year governments of both political persuasions accepted the United Nations High Commission on Refugees as being the body most appropriate to determine Australia's refugee intake. I say with respect that the Minister is tinkering with that. I regret to say that he is tinkering with it in an ideological manner . I note that in his statement he did not claim total support from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, but he did claim some form of general support for a global approach. I will say something more about that later in my remarks. I am forced again to criticise the Minister because he has virtually abolished deportation from this country. In his ministerial statement he did not mention the fact that we have now reached the incredible situation in Australia that we do not even have the power to deport a Soviet spy who has been a resident of this country for, say, 10 years. I wonder whether the people of Australia would be interested to know tle position in respect of a person who had resided in this country for 10 years and had not taken out citizenship and who had harboured Mr Ivanov. As a result of the amendments which the Government put through last year it has prevented itself effectively from deporting that person . I say again to the Minister, in a friendly way, if I can put it to him in that way: Why is he not prepared to earn his salary by exercising his ministerial discretion? Since he became Minister he has refused point blank to exercise discretion in cases where persons in Australia on visas wish to seek permanent resident status, unless a person marries or unless there are special humanitarian grounds. Furthermore, I put it to the Minister that he has not on any occasion varied from that, whatever the Immigration Review Panel has said. Therefore, he has created a situation in which any person in Australia on a visa wishing to seek permanent resident status has to marry to gain such status. I suggest that is marvellous if, firstly, that person is already married or, secondly, that person does not want to get married. It is because the Minister has failed to exercise his ministerial discretion properly that harsh and inhumane decisions, such as that which occurred in the Petrovski case, have unfortunately occurred. In relation to the latest matter concerning a couple in Melbourne, I ask the Minister whether he is seriously considering going before the courts and saying that because they are British and came to Australia on visas and because they did not and could not apply for permanent resident status, he intends to bullet them out of the country with their tiny baby who happens to have been born in Australia and, therefore, as an Australian citizen, is allowed to stay. Mr Kerin —You will say anything. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister for Primary Industry can laugh about this, but these are matters before the courts. A situation has been created-- Mr Hand —I raise a point of order. The honourable member is not addressing the statement. For the benefit of the House I ask him to do so. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The statement is on the progress of the migration program, which is a very wide ranging subject. Mr HODGMAN —This matter was touched upon in the Minister's statement in one part but totally ignored in the other. I criticise the Minister for his anti- democratic and, I submit, totalitarian action in twice now refusing visas for persons to enter Australia. Let me remind the Minister of the first case because it is not about South Africa; it is about East Timor. Last year the Minister permitted himself-I know it must have hurt him to do it-to be bludgeoned and caucused by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others to refuse access to this country of two representatives from Fretilin, East Timor. Their representations to come to Australia were refused until after the Prime Minister had made his visit to Jakarta. The Minister is not going to tell me that that is not true, is he? The fact of the matter is that the Minister allowed those representatives entry into Australia only after Prime Minister Hawke had been to and left Jakarta. The Minister knows that to be the fact. What has the Minister done in the last month? If he does not think there is any substance in my remarks I invite him to look at what the newspapers of Australia , such as the Melbourne Age, have said. I invite him to read what Mr Warden said in the Canberra Times today. He will not allow three rugby union administrators from South Africa to come into this country. Those three persons have argued strenuously against apartheid in their country. I excuse the Minister because he was on leave when this was done. Believe it or not, the action was taken by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). Dr Craven and his two colleagues, all anti-apartheid campaigners in South Africa, were not even allowed to come into Australia to talk to the Government at first hand to find out what more needed to be done before there could be the possibility of resuming sporting contacts. Is this Australia 1984 or is it the Soviet Union? Is this Australia or is it nazi Germany? One of the men whom the Minister refused to allow into Australia was jet black, Mr Mydesha. The Minister would not let him in. He does not seem to realise that South Africa now has a nationally integrated rugby union side which has competed against-I am not a rugby supporter-Argentina and New Zealand. What has the Minister done in the last fortnight? He has said: 'There is no way known that we will let a member of the South African Parliament and an Indian member of the President's Council come to this country. We will let members of this Parliament go to South Africa, officially or unofficially; but, heavens above, we will not let those people come here'. I hate apartheid. I hate the whole precept upon which the South African Government is based, but I love democracy. I suggest that the Minister has done a grave disservice to democracy in Australia. As a result of his actions he has created the situation in which freedom of speech and exchange of view have been denied. I put it to the Minister that the interests of democracy, to which I genuinely believe he must be committed, though misguidedly advised, have not been served by his decision. I must say to the Minister-I know he must feel this keenly, because I do not think it is his fault-how ashamed and embarrassed he must be at all the election promises made in relation to immigration and ethnic affairs which have been dishonoured. I refer to promises made by the Special Minister of State, when he was the illustrious shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. What did he say on behalf of the Australian Labor Party right around Australia prior to the election last year? He said: 'The migration intake will be maintained'. He gave a commitment to the ethnic communities of Australia. I will not quibble about a few thousand but in broad terms he said that the migration intake would be maintained. On the Minister's figures, it has been chopped. I agree that there is an argument about the extent to which it is down. But it is nothing like the 83,000 it was under the previous Government in 1982-83. The Minister's figures put it down to 70,000. I have to put it to the Minister that plenty of people outside think the figure is closer to 60,000. The short point is that it was not maintained. What about the firm election commitment? How does the Minister think I felt outside Parliament House last November, standing alongside people who politically would have been 10 miles away from me but with whom I agreed when they asked: 'What sort of a government is it that gives a firm election commitment that it will create a permanent adult migrant service and put all casual full time teachers on a permanent basis?' That commitment has been dishonoured. I have no doubt that the Minister fought for that but Cabinet would not back him. I ask the Minister how he felt about commitments to education of migrants, young and old, in this country when we look at what happened in last year's Budget and see that in one area alone $17m was sliced off. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) but out there in the real Australia migrant families are asking: 'What is going on? The promises were made. The promises have been dishonoured'. The Minister did not mention-it may be because he has promised a debate in the Parliament on it, and I accept that-what he has done in destroying the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. I simply want to say that, whilst there are some people supporting the Minister in this, their political persuasion and the views that they express are such that I urge the Minister not to be carried away into thinking that he has done the right thing in destroying the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. It is perhaps the Minister's misfortune that the former Chairman of AIMA happens to be a barrister of considerable distinction. It also happens that Mr Galbally has prepared a most interesting response to the report upon which the Minister based his decision, which was effectively to destroy the AIMA. I say to the Minister that he has put the fear of God-I say this seriously-into one of the finest creations in this country in the field of ethnic and multicultural affairs. I refer to the Special Broadcasting Service. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have given the honourable member for Denison some latitude because the statement from the Minister was entitled 'Migration Program 1983-84' . I point out that, essentially, it seems that the Minister's statement deals with migrant intake and the honourable member has gone rather wide of that. Mr HODGMAN —You are quite correct, Mr Speaker, and I will come directly to the statement. But before I deal with the statement I just say that I support and accept on behalf of the Opposition the announcement that the Minister made today about East Timorese refugees currently in Portugal and other parts of the world. The Minister knows of my long standing involvement in this matter. I believe that the action he has proposed is proper. Mr Kerin —This is your sincere bit, is it? Mr HODGMAN —Perhaps I made the mistake of being deceived into thinking you are a decent bloke. But I say quite genuinely that on this matter I applaud what he is doing. I have only had a chance to speak to one former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from our side and he agrees with me. I have not had a chance to talk to the other. But this issue should have been in the statement because it does involve migrant intake. It should not have been used-I hope the Minister was not a party to this-as a means of taking up a valuable part of Question Time , thus preventing the Opposition from exposing a number of matters of national importance. I now turn to the Minister's statement. I am sorry that he saw fit-it is not really like him-to say a few things in the statement which I think are totally unfair and unjust and which will rebound upon him electorally. He claimed quite incorrectly that the previous Government gave priority to migration which filled alleged labour shortages within Australia. In that statement, which is a gross disservice to the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), both of whom were outstanding Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I believe, with respect, that the Minister demeaned his statement. Though it is true and correct to say that labour shortages were matters of concern, no government can stand with its head higher and be more proud of its record of an humanitarian approach to immigration and ethnic affairs than the Fraser Government. I place on the record that the honourable member for Balaclava, the honourable member for Warringah and the former honourable member for Petrie, in my humble opinion and in the opinion of hundreds of thousands of migrants who knew them, were three outstanding humanitarian and capable Ministers. I am sorry that in the very first page of his statement the Minister sought to impugn effectively what they did. I have talked about the breach of the migrant intake and the pledge by the Special Minister of State which has been totally violated. Whether it is a question of 17,000 or 20,000, on the very prime question of the size of the migrant intake, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) promised one thing and the Minister and the Hawke socialist Government delivered another. In relation to family reunions the Minister would have been much fairer if he had conceded in the Parliament that I stood alongside him at the Wentworth Hotel four months ago and I congratulated the Hawke socialist Government on increasing the family reunion program. I said that if he wanted to go further the Opposition would be sympathetic to his moves in that direction. It now transpires, sad to say, that the great headlines of increased family reunions have turned into the reality that the amount of increase trumpeted through the Press has not been reached and will not be reached. The honourable member for Mitchell also was at the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales Ball at the Wentworth Hotel. We were all there-the Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell and I, and about 300 or 400 other people. The honourable member for Mitchell said to me that night: 'Wait until the unions get to him'. The plain fact is that that night the Minister was lauded and applauded by ethnic community leaders in New South Wales who thought that he would deliver. They now realise that on this issue unfortunately he has not. The Minister's next innuendo-it is an innuendo-is to the effect that anybody who has the temerity to point out that British and Irish new settler arrivals have dropped by 32 per cent and European new settler arrivals to Australia have dropped by 25 per cent is in some convoluted way being racist. On behalf of the Opposition, let me say that when we asserted last year that this Government would proceed down a path of discrimination against both British and European settlers-mark that I say British and European-little did we know how dramatically the figures would vindicate what we said. The Minister accused me of being anti-Asian and racist, not directly but by innuendo. I am disappointed that the Minister did that. In fact, he should check with some of his colleagues who identified themselves to me last week as members of the socialist Left at Melbourne University. They call themselves the SL. Mr Hand —What were you doing talking to them? Mr HODGMAN —A couple of them mentioned the honourable member for Melbourne. They said to me: 'What do you think of this?' They produced a highly racist, highly inflammatory pamphlet in respect of Asian immigration which was circulating around Melbourne University. I denounced that pamphlet as racist. The Minister might be interested to know that I am so racist that I happen to be the patron of the Philippine Cultural Society of Tasmania. I happen to be the honorary legal adviser to the Fiji-Australia Association of Tasmania. If the Minister wants it chapter and verse, I have been directly involved in my little State of Tasmania with ethnic organisations for over 20 years. The numbers rank in excess of 15 organisations. As a matter of interest, three soccer clubs of ethnic origin at one time or another have asked me to be their patron. Those who have accused me of being racist have bombed out with respect to one group. One of the Minister's colleagues floated around the Greek community in Melbourne saying that Michael Hodgman was a racist. The great mistake he made was that he had not checked with his Greek mates in Hobart. If he had checked, he would have found that for the last 15 years I have been the honorary legal adviser to the Greek community and Society of St George in Hobart. I appeared without fee and won for them a major building arbitration over Hellenic Hall which is the home of the Greek community in our State. I do not blame the Minister. It is the people he is listening to. He is getting the wrong advice from the wrong people. The Franca Arenas of this world are not the be all and the end all. Only two nights ago at a meeting chaired by Dr Peter Shergold-the Minister would know him, no doubt, he would know some of the people at that meeting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that I invited him to be a bit closer to the subject matter under discussion. Mr HODGMAN —I will come right back to it. If any member of the Minister's Department or any of his colleagues-I know that he would not do it-like to say outside this Parliament that I am racist, I will have them in the nearest court in the quickest possible time and will live contentedly on the damages which I will gain. Mr Hand —That is a threat. Mr HODGMAN —It is a threat and my word it will be carried into effect. What is more, I will get a good first class Italian barrister to appear on my behalf. I say in passing a very small but very significant thing. People talk about people being anti-Asian. Everybody in Australia, I am sure, including the Minister and everybody in this House, would have been very proud of the fact that the head of the surgery team which carried out that major heart surgery in Sydney only a couple of weeks ago was an Australian-Chinese surgeon. It brought home to me the old adage which begins, 'There is so much good in the best of us'; I will not finish it because I probably will not get it right. The Minister has made a move in relation to the refugee program which, as I said before, politicises it. The Minister indulges himself in pursuing his ideologies. I have no objection at all to genuine refugees from the two countries the Minister specifically nominated, Chile and El Salvador, being brought into this country. But I have to ask the Minister why when last year he talked of Chile and El Salvador he does not now talk of those, for example, who might want to come to this country from Nicaragua? Why does he not talk about those who might want to come from Argentina? Why does he, as he did last year, specifically advert to Chile and El Salvador while ignoring refugees from other countries? My problem is that because of the comments made by the Minister, there is a belief outside that he is, as it were, trying to balance things up politically and that he seems to be under the misapprehension that our Government brought in people because of their political persuasions. Mr MacKellar —Of course he is. Mr HODGMAN —I see the honourable member for Warringah agrees. It is very difficult for me to explain to somebody who comes to my office, and in relation to the refugee intake specifically, asks why it is that there is such a delay in processing applications from Poland. The plain fact is, as the Minister well knows, that the backlog has now become atrocious. Why is it that people in Poland have to get a medical clearance via London? Mr West —Why don't you ask the Polish authorities? They would know all about that. Mr HODGMAN —If the Minister were to apply himself to the position of Poland and eastern Europe as assiduously as he has applied himself to the position in Chile and El Salvador, these matters would not be raised. I am afraid that they are seen as part of a continuing sequence of events proving beyond reasonable doubt the radical and dangerous turn to the Left which has occurred since the Minister came here. Mr West —Oh! Mr HODGMAN —I apologise to the Minister, but these matters have to be brought out. Mr West —We have continued the eastern European program; I said that in the statement. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry. There has been a moderate reduction in the eastern European refugee program. The Minister says that applications have fallen off; yet my constituents and people on this side of the House tell me that they cannot get applications processed. By analogy, that is the same as the Minister' s statement that he wants to see people become Australian citizens, yet in Sydney and Brisbane people have to wait for six to nine months from the time of application for citizenship before they become citizens. It is one thing to say something; it is another thing to perform. The matter which concerns me appears on pages 9 and 10 of the Minister's statement. I put it to the Minister that he is encouraging divisiveness and is inspiring racist talk when he accuses people such as myself and members on this side of the House of being racist because we perceive in his policies the very sorts of things that we do not believe are in the interests of Australia. In conclusion, the Minister has been responsible for a number of moves which have been supported by the Opposition. We supported the Minister when he came into this Parliament and asked that we get away from the distinction in the Migration Act between British and non-British citizens. We supported the Minister in a bipartisan manner on a number of matters, but we will not support him when he pursues philosophies and ideologies which effectively are not acceptable to the majority of Australians. He has never denied having done this. The Minister's commitment to socialism and republicanism is his business, but he is not entitled to ram it down the throats of the Australian people. The point of this is that of all the ministries in this Government his is the one which will endure the longest. What he does will not just shape Australia for today or tomorrow. What he does now will shape Australia for decades ahead. What he will do is create a legacy for this country which, in the opinion of myself, the majority of members on this side of the chamber and the majority of Australians, will not create the sort of Australia we would like to see to the end of this century and into the twenty-first century. I appeal to the Minister before he goes too far down that track to talk to the people of Australia. I ask that the Minister talk to the people about what sort of Australia they want to see before he changes its face so that in 50 year's time it is unrecognisable. Debate (on motion by Mr Hand) adjourned. Mr SPEAKER — I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's obstruction of the Parliament in the proper discharge of its constitutional responsibilities in relation to Federal Judges. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.49) —Over the last few days in responding to questions both from the Government and from the Opposition on the Age tapes issue, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) among other things has sought to rely on two emotions. The first of these emotions is in a proper context, of course; a sense of indignity at unfair attacks upon the judiciary of Australia. Well it is that the Prime Minister of this country above everybody else should have a proper sense of concern about unfair attacks upon members of the judiciary. Over the past few days the Prime Minister has sought to characterise questions raised by the Opposition on this issue as being an improper use of parliamentary privilege to impugn the general integrity of the judiciary. It sits very ill for this man to try to raise a sense of righteous indignation about what we have said regarding allegations involving a Federal judge when one recalls what that same person said on 15 December 1979 when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He said: If ever people have to face their maker and justify their existence, certain occupants of the High Court will have a particularly messy time. That quotation came from none other than the present Prime Minister of Australia . It demonstrates that when it comes to questioning about the judiciary, as with questioning about the use of deficit estimates, this Prime Minister is bedevilled with double standards. Not only has he been demonstrated to have double standards on this issue but also, during Question Time, he fulminated about the fact that these tapes were obtained in circumstances which involved some invasion of privacy. It may well be that obtaining the tapes involved some illegality. It may well be, as I understand to be the case, that that possible illegality should be investigated. But let me remind the House of two things: Firstly, when it came to using tapes that suited his own purpose in an industrial dispute 11 years ago, the present Prime Minister was monumentally unconcerned about the invasion of privacy that was involved. He enunciated a simple doctrine: If material raised in tapes is serious enough, it does not really matter how they were obtained. That was the doctrine according to Hawke in 1972. Secondly, the doctrine according to Hawke now is that if there is any taint of illegality in the obtaining of tapes, one must totally ignore them. Once again this Prime Minister is demonstrated to have monumental double standards. The essence of this issue, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) acknowledged during Question Time, is the role of the Parliament. It is beyond argument that under section 72 of the Constitution of Australia the question of removal or dealing with Federal judges in relation to allegations of misbehaviour is something that belongs to this Parliament and to this Parliament alone. If one were to look at the debates of the Australian Constitutional Convention and to examine the ordinary, plain English meaning of the language of section 72 one is left with the absolutely irrefutable conclusion that it belongs to this Parliament and to this Parliament alone to determine questions of misbehaviour relating to Federal judges. The Government's weakest area and area of greatest vulnerability on this issue is its absolute refusal to acknowledge the right of this Parliament and this Parliament alone to determine questions of misbehaviour. By its actions and its obstruction, the Executive Government of this country at present is denying to the Parliament the right given to it under the Constitution. What the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Prime Minister are doing-what no doubt the Deputy Prime Minister will do-is inviting this Parliament to the equivalent of passing a piece of legislation whilst denying the members of the Parliament a copy of the legislation in question. If we are to discharge our constitutional responsibility to adjudicate upon matters of misbehaviour, I ask you, Mr Speaker, how on earth can we exercise that responsibility unless we have the relevant material before us? When one goes through what the Government has done and said on this issue it is very interesting to note that, although it has obtained an opinion from Mr Temby on what he thinks constitutes misbehaviour and lack of judicial behaviour, and although it has obtained an opinion from the Solicitor-General about his definition of what constitutes misbehaviour under the Constitution, at no stage has this Attorney-General, this Prime Minister or this Government sought to obtain an opinion from anybody about the role of the Parliament in this issue. That is a very interesting omission. The reason for that omission is that the role of the Parliament in this issue is beyond argument and beyond contest. It is for the Parliament and the Parliament alone to decide questions of misbehaviour. I make it quite clear so there will be no side argument: I cast no reflection on the integrity of either Mr Temby or the present Solicitor-General. The question of their integrity and competence really is irrelevant to the argument I am putting. My argument is a very simple one. It is the central issue in this whole debate; that is, whether we as the Parliament, as ordained by the Constitution, will have the right to do what the founding fathers wanted us to do. When one goes through the Convention debates-indeed, when one goes through the opinion of the Solicitor-General himself, an opinion on which the Attorney- General has sought to rely in rebutting the requests made by the Opposition not only here but also in another place-one finds an endorsement of the very proposition I am putting. I refer to page 7 of the opinion of the Solicitor- General, where he recites the debates and the movements of those debates at the Constitutional Convention regarding the question of the power of parliament to address for removal on grounds. Picking up the language of clause 12 of the opinion, he says: The general discretionary power of Parliament to address for removal on grounds other than misbehaviour, in the technical sense understood by the delegates, was eliminated-- here are the important words- with the function of finding such misbehaviour vested in the Parliament rather than in the Executive. That is the opinion not of the Opposition, not of a member of the Opposition, but of the Government's second law officer. He is saying very clearly in that opinion that it is for the Parliament to make a decision on questions of misbehaviour. What is the response of the Attorney-General to this? I had a debate about this issue with the Attorney-General last night on the radio program PM. When I put the proposition that it really was the role of Parliament and that this was the central issue, his response was: 'Well, I get complaints about the peccadillos of Federal judges all the time. Do you mean to say that every time I get a letter from an aggrieved litigant complaining about the conduct of a Federal judge I have to run off to the Parliament and get the Parliament to have a look at it?'. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that to compare what has happened on this occasion in relation to a Federal judge with a letter from an aggrieved litigant is, of course, an absurdity. Everybody knows how seriously the Government is taking these allegations. Everybody knows that if they were vexatious or frivolous allegations the Government, with all the resources available to it, would have demonstrated that beyond argument long before now. But we all know that they are not vexatious allegations, they are not frivolous; they are serious enough for the Attorney- General to take the extraordinary step of twice discussing these allegations with the Federal judge concerned. They are serious enough for him to get two legal opinions. They are serious enough to cause the establishment of a joint Commonwealth-State task force. They are serious enough for material to be sent to Mr Redlich. They are serious enough for material to be sent to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. They are serious enough for one of the people asked to give an opinion to the Government to warn the judge in question that he had better be careful of whom he associates with in future. That is a fairly unprecedented warning for anybody to give to a Federal judge. When the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the Deputy Prime Minister, replies I invite him to draw on examples of when that sort of thing has occurred before. We are dealing with no frivolous letter of complaint from an aggrieved litigant . We are dealing with substantive allegations. We are dealing with allegations which need to be probed. We are requiring of the Government that it enable this Parliament to discharge its constitutional responsibility. Until this Parliament is provided with the material that is in the possession of the Government, until this Parliament has an opportunity to find out whether there is other relevant material, how do we know whether there are not other tapes in the possession of other arms of the Government? How do we know whether, on due inquiry, we might not establish the existence of other material? How do we know whether on due inquiry we will not find that other questions, possibly involving misconduct and misbehaviour, may exist? The simple fact is that while this Parliament is denied access to the material that is now in the hands of the Government, the Executive constantly obstructs the Parliament in the discharge of its constitutional responsibilities. For the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General to say 'I have Temby's opinion', 'I have the Solicitor-General's opinion' or 'I have the Attorney-General's opinion', is to invite us in this Parliament to substitute their judgment for ours. If the founding fathers had wanted the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister or the Solicitor-General to decide such a matter they would have said so but, expressly for the reasons that were so clearly set out by Mr Barton in the convention debates, they made it clear that ultimately that power had to rest with this Parliament. While this Government continues to obstruct, deny and prevent this Parliament from exercising its constitutional responsibilities the concerns out in the community will multiply. Nothing that the Attorney-General has yet said has satisfied the Opposition or, dare I say, the discerning public on this issue . At this stage I draw no final conclusion about the substance of the allegations contained in those tapes. All I know is that they were sufficiently serious for the Attorney-General to take the steps that he did. All I know is that they were sufficiently serious for the other steps that I have outlined to be taken by the Government. While the Government continues to prevent this Parliament from exercising its constitutional responsibility we have a right, indeed, a duty, to continue to press it and to complain. During debates on this issue a great deal of heat has been generated and appeal made to emotions. We are not talking about a light matter or about vexatious complaints. As I said earlier, if the Government could demonstrate that they are vexatious it certainly would have done so in its own interest long before now. What we are talking about is that, for the first time in many years, perhaps ever, there are grounds for believing that there may need to be an inquiry into allegations that have been made about a judge of a federal court in this country . The Government's response has been totally inadequate. It has added fuel to the suspicion of many that the Prime Minister, after his return from overseas, got together with the Premier of New South Wales and said: 'Let's get Neville to the polls as quickly as possible'. The Opposition has offered the Government an avenue for having this matter adjudicated by the Parliament away from the heat of battle of the New South Wales State election. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) today asked the Prime Minister whether he would convene an inquiry of this Parliament which would not sit until after the New South Wales election. In other words, we are prepared to remove the matter from the New South Wales State election. That proposal, made despite the political grounds that we have for suspecting the Government's motives, has been rejected by the Government. We can only reach the conclusion that this Executive, from the Prime Minister down, is hell bent on denying this Parliament the right to discharge its proper constitutional responsibilities. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(4.05) —This is the third of a series of debates on matters of public importance. Only today have we virtually heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) the name of the judge concerned. It is a bit late because the judge was named yesterday by the Queensland Minister for Transport, Mr Lane in the Queensland Parliament. Mr Lane is the Minister who is never prepared to repeat allegations outside the Parliament because he would have to face the true weight of proving them. Luckily for members of the judiciary of this country their tenure of office does not depend on political attitudes that may be adopted by members of parliament or parties. If it did, obviously we would be changing the judiciary pretty frequently. Honourable members would have individual views as to who ought to hold such office. Of course, many honourable members would be anxious to promote themselves. Doing that would not create a precedent either. The first five minutes of this debate today amounted to a harangue, an attack, on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) because a projected deficit had not been disclosed. Mr Howard —He has double standards. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister did not interject when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was speaking. I think that he deserves the same courtesy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I deserve it but probably will not get it. Mr Howard —It depends on how you behave. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —At least it would be a standard that the honourable member might approve. We have before us the question whether there has been an obstruction to the proper discharge of constitutional responsibility. I believe that if the honourable member examines constitutional responsibility, as I am sure he will, being a fair-minded person, he will note that such a matter can be raised in Parliament only when misbehaviour has been proven. That happens to be the wording of the Constitution. What we do know-nobody will object to that-is that a journalist named Mr Bob Bottom got hold of some material and gave it to the Age newspaper. This particular bit of information is not unknown to people. Apparently, it was the same information as the National Times newspaper had published on a prior occasion. The honourable member is not so far removed from John Fairfax and Sons in Sydney as not to make it very clear that any information it had would certainly be made available to him. They are the publishers of the National Times. Mr Howard —Why? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Because it would be their duty so to do. Mr Howard —Why me? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member has a pretty close family association with the attorneys for John Fairfax and Sons. There is nothing wrong with that but at least it puts him right on the onus-- Mr Howard —Are you accusing my brother of breaching his client's privilege? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not talking about that at all. Mr Howard —Yes, you are. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am talking about the honourable member's association-- Mr Howard —Are you suggesting that my brother would give me material? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am suggesting-- Mr Howard —Yes, you are. You are accusing my brother of breaking his client's privilege. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Is the honourable member suggesting they have it now? Is that what he is saying? The honourable gentleman is very sensitive indeed. All I am saying is that John Fairfax and Sons have access to honourable members opposite. If they have the information why do they not disclose it? Opposition members-How? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Because, as I have just indicated, John Fairfax and Sons, through its legal position, would be able clearly to indicate that there was certain information and that they felt that there had been a breach of federal law or conduct. Mr Hunt —That is how your Party works, in New South Wales in particular. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it does not. Mr SPEAKER —The House will come to order. I suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister ignore interjections. Mr Howard —At least my brother is not Morgan Ryan. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member's brother is not Morgan Ryan. At least Morgan Ryan does not get any protection from him; he makes that very clear. He happens to be a member of the same profession. The honourable member is prepared to use this coward's castle to cast aspersions on him. Why does he not go outside and say it? He is not game. Morgan Ryan happens to be a member of the same profession, as the honourable member knows. I am not here to make any other proposition-- Mr Howard —Get on to the subject. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am anxious to get on to the subject because it relates to the material that the National Times has. That newspaper is published by John Fairfax and Sons. I had begun to talk about the legal opportunities that John Fairfax and Sons would have to produce the material. That seems to offend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition no end. Let us look at why the Opposition should address its mind to this matter in a cold and calculated legal fashion. On the evidence already given by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) Mr Abbott, the Chief Police Commissioner of New South Wales, requested the National Times to provide him with the material, only to be refused on the ground that, as the document purported to be a police document, it should already be in his possession. That is the attitude taken. Now we come to the point. If the real evidence were, as it must be according to the National Times, in the possession of the police, would not honourable members think that the police would be able to produce it by now? There is a joint Federal-State police task force. Surely if, as the National Times says, the information is in police possession, we can get it. Mr Ruddock —It says it ought to be in their possession. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It says it is. There might be some very good reason for the National Times certainly not wanting to disclose its source of information. One of the reasons would be a Federal law and the Federal law is the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. Section 7 of that Act states that a person shall not intercept such a conversation. Of course it is known, or apparently alleged, that a conversation was intercepted by a police officer, who we can understand, if that is the position, does not want to disclose his identity. Is that any excuse for what the Opposition is about in this Parliament today? Mr Howard —What about the Parliament? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the point. It is a question of proved misbehaviour. Do we have a suggestion that a media person says: 'I have something that looks like a tape.'? When that person is asked to produce it he says: 'Oh, I have not got it. It belongs to the police'. Nobody in the police admits he has it nor can it be found. There might be a very good reason. For instance, if anybody were to admit it he would face imprisonment of two years and a penalty of $5,000. That is the position. Secondly, any person who wanted to divulge or communicate to another person information obtained by intercepting faces the same penalty. It is no wonder the founding fathers had to come to some clear understanding of what might happen in a parliament if they left the question of justice to be determined by people such as members of the Opposition. Firstly they have no proved misbehaviour. There is a suggestion that there is a tape. The opinion given by Mr Temby and the Solicitor-General is that even on those facts there is no offence. What is it that honourable members opposite are so worried about, other than the fact that the judge in question at one stage was a member of the Senate and belonged to a different political party to themselves? That is the real issue. At present the Opposition in an orchestrated manner is now moving in the Senate a censure motion against the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). That is very predictable, but certainly political. The Opposition in the Senate certainly should not move a censure motion in respect of an Attorney-General who has disclosed as much information as the present Attorney-General has. What is it that the Opposition is frightened of? Is it frightened that the opinion did not go the right way? That is all it is. What is the information that the Opposition wants to get? Do not the police allegedly have it? I draw the attention of honourable members opposite to the fact that at least the founding fathers had some sense of justice about them. Honourable members opposite should look at the debates on the Constitution that relate to this matter. Mr Kingston made the point in 1897, and at least he had some sense of priorities: To my mind we shall be committing a glaring mistake if we do not protect these judges from ill-considered action either by the Federal Executive or by the Federal Parliament. I repeat, ill-considered action by the Federal Executive or by the Federal Parliament. Honourable members opposite know very well that plenty of action has been taken. Mr Howard —Not by us. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he was heard in absolute silence for the duration of his speech. I suggest that he gives the Deputy Prime Minister the same courtesy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a very famous interjection, that no action was taken by them. If he had a chance he would remove any Labor appointee. He would not approve of any Labor appointee. I must say that the honourable member seems to have a capacity continually to interject without his interjections being connected in any way with the intelligence of the debate. All he is doing is burbling on, trying to prevent me from saying anything at all. I again make the point that there was some preamble for this situation back in 1897 when Mr Isaacs of some fame made the point that far back in British history , as was shown in the text books, judges were absolutely at the mercy of the Crown, held their positions at the pleasure of the Crown and drew their salaries at the pleasure of the Crown. Mr Isaacs pointed out that that was felt to be such a wrong position that a change was needed and that is what we have now in terms of section 72 of the Constitution. Judges certainly can be removed provided there is proved misbehaviour. However, there is no justification at all for suggesting that even when there is no prima facie case, no evidence, some action should be taken in the Parliament. Mr Lusher —I do not know that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am trying to educate the honourable member today. The National Times-that is, a John Fairfax and Sons Ltd publication-knows and said that the evidence is in the possession of the New South Wales police. We would assume from that that whilst it might be in the possession of the New South Wales police, they cannot find it. Is anybody going to suggest that they are going to cover that up? Mr Cadman —They have lost the file. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If they lost the file, the position is very simple. Has the honourable member heard that the evidence was obtained in 1979 and 1980? Does he say that they have now suddenly lost the file? Come on! They did not lose the file. They allegedly gave a copy to Bob Bottom. Bob Bottom, of course, gave it to the National Times. The Sydney Morning Herald did not publish it. It decided to get its subsidiary down in Melbourne to do something about it. It is quite significant that all this flurry of excitement seems to have been created because of the New South Wales election. This is the real issue. That is what has caused all of this. It has nothing to do with the propriety or otherwise of behaviour back in 1979 or 1980. Fancy suggesting now that evidence that was available somewhere in some policeman's possession-- Mr Sinclair —Why did Gareth talk to the judge if there is nothing in it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable member says 'Nothing in it'. That is what I think is the position. Since 1979 and 1980 it has lain dormant. It cannot be found anywhere. It suddenly surfaces once an election is announced. Oh, come on! Because honourable members opposite cannot prove anything at all they are saying : 'Well, look, there has been an obstruction'. Where is the obstruction? The only paper that printed the material was a John Fairfax and Sons Ltd paper. The only explanation the newspaper has is that the police have the material. There is certainly strong evidence of lack of authenticity. The Solicitor-General of New South Wales made the point that on the evidence she has before her it certainly is a manufactured tape. It is certainly not the original; it has been tampered with. Mr Spender —She does not say that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member says that she does not say it. Let us have a look at the position. Mr Spender —What she says is that there are doubts arising out of it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, have a look at this point. The New South Wales Solicitor- General's opinion confirms an impression. She says: In some conversations there are changes in speech patterns and/or speed which are to the untrained ear suggestive of 'editing'. Mr Spender —Suggestive. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Just a minute. The honourable member is very worried about it, is he not? She went on: Without full technical assessment- This is the Solicitor-General whose word honourable members opposite will take. Is that right? Will they take the Solicitor-General's word? Mr Spender —I have read the opinion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They will not answer that question. They are not prepared to take the word of the Solicitor-General of New South Wales. Mr Sinclair —You are right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —'You are right' says the Leader of the National Party of Australia who would know a lot about justice in New South Wales. He is the man who runs a mile from it. When the police interview him he says: 'I have nothing to do with it'. What a great help he is to the Opposition today. The Solicitor- General of New South Wales said: Without full technical assessment it is not possible to exclude the possibility of 'editing' and/or 'patching' of conversations. So there we have it. She said: This may be a lengthy process and, in any event, may not be reliable because the tapes are, as I have already stated, clearly not the original intercept recordings. Now members of the Opposition say it is not a fabrication. What is it? Mr Newman —Oh, come on. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Why does not the honourable member come to light with the information that he has? He was in charge of the police for so long that surely he has something. He was prepared to make a lot of statements when he was a Minister, but he has not produced anything today. So the upshot of this is that it is the third attempt this week to suggest that there is some information. We had the former Minister suggesting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.19) —Does anybody in this House deny that any allegations involving a member of the judiciary are matters of serious concern? Does anybody here deny that any government must treat such allegations as very serious matters? Certainly that is what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said and I would agree that they are serious matters. Now what are the matters that we are looking at here? Inadvertently the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) demonstrated that he does not understand the issue. He said two things. He said that it has to be shown that there is obstruction to the proper discharge, as I understand, of the duties of Parliament. He went on to say this: It can only be raised-- that is the question concerning misbehaviour- in this Parliament when some serious proved misbehaviour exists. That is, of course, contrary to the Constitution. It is contrary to the advice of Mr Temby, QC and it is contrary to the advice of the Solicitor-General. Mr Temby, QC, dealing with the subject of Parliament's powers, after referring to section 72(ii) of the Constitution and the question of proved misbehaviour said this: . . . in that event he could be removed from office by the Governor-General on an address from both Houses of Parliament. That is of course a matter upon which only the Parliament could decide, if it chose to embark upon the exercise. What did the Solicitor-General say upon the same subject? At the end of his opinion in reference to a conviction he said: It is not limited to conviction in a court of law. A matter pertaining to office or a breach of the general law of the requisite seriousness in a matter not pertaining to office may be found by proof, in appropriate manner, to the Parliament in proceedings where the offender has been given proper notice and opportunity to defend himself. It is the most specious nonsense to say that somehow one has to show a prima facie case before one is even entitled to look at the matter here, and the Deputy Prime Minister must know that. Let us put one or two other matters to one side. It was not this Opposition that raised this matter, it was the Age newspaper that raised this matter. It was the Age that put this question into the public domain and that was followed by the National Times. Once questions arising from these tapes were in the public domain one thing was perfectly plain and that is that there was a very serious question, very serious allegations, concerning an unnamed judge. Does anybody really think that the Australian public is going to put that to one side and say: 'This is a matter of no consequence. We don't really care.' Now what then happened? Undeniably the Attorney-General thought it was serious. He immediately got the opinion of Mr Temby, QC, and he got the opinion of the Solicitor-General. Why? Because of the seriousness of the allegations. It is as simple as that. What happened? Mr Temby had to look at a vast amount of material in a very short time. I can say only that there are some doubts that he looked at everything because he was very rushed. I make it perfectly plain that these are two eminent lawyers and I would not in any way reflect upon them. But certainly if one looks at Mr Temby's opinion it is perfectly plain that there are major omissions of material to which, for whatever the reason, he does not refer. Now, what are they? Let me give honourable members some of the items which he does not deal with in that opinion. There is an allegation raised in the published material, in the material that everyone in this country is reading, to the effect that in a conversation between the judge and the solicitor, the solicitor referred to a New South Wales politician who was paying him back some money in a way that involved defrauding the Commissioner for Taxation and that he was going to put the screws on to that man. What did the judge say? Apparently it is alleged that the judge warned the solicitor about talking on the phone-warned the solicitor about talking on the phone about a matter such as that. Now if that is true, is not that a matter of immense importance? Is not that an allegation that needs to be examined, and who else can examine it but this Parliament? What is the next item which was not referred to by Mr Temby. On the basis of the published material it is alleged that the judge and the solicitor had a conversation in which they discussed the initiation of malicious prosecution proceedings against, amongst others, a former senior politician, of the funding of those proceedings, and of who should be the plaintiff. The plaintiff apparently was not to be the judge. Is that not a matter that requires consideration? Is that not serious, coming from a judge of very high office? Did it happen? If it did happen what was the motive for the bringing of those proceedings or for discussing them? Next there was the question of Federal and State matters being dealt with in the course of a conversation between the judge and the wife of the solicitor, so it is alleged. It is alleged that he spoke about the need to get both the State and Federal matters settled. What are they? What is the last matter of these four items? He suggested, so it is alleged, that inquiries should be made about the solicitor, that this should be made by a State politician and that he would: '. . . come up smelling like a rose'. For what reason? Who was going to make these inquiries? What does that on its face suggest? It suggests a fabricated inquiry and a fabricated response? Is that something this Parliament is meant to put to one side and say: 'Well, no, that is of no consequence. We really don't concern ourselves with these matters, nor would the Australian people.' The Australian people expect a great deal of the judiciary. They expect far more of them than they expect of us. They exact very high standards from them and so they should because the judiciary and the integrity of the judiciary are the bedrock of our society. Once it goes we are all in grave trouble. Do not these matters need to be looked at? What is the answer which is given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? I listened with great care to what he had to say in Question Time today. These in sequence are his garbled thoughts. First of all he said: '. . . the gravity of the allegations . . . ' Where are these allegations? The answer is: the allegations which your Government has. The allegations which have been referred to the Attorney-General and to the Solicitor-General and to Mr Temby QC and to the Joint Task Force. Next he said: The evidence or these allegations-these tapes-have been illegally taken. So that might be the case. But that does not exclude in any way this Parliament looking at material which has been illegally taken; nor, as a general rule, does it exclude courts convicting people on the basis of material illegally taken. Next he said that it was unauthenticated. Dear me, why does not somebody go to some of the people who can be identified on the tapes and say 'Is that you?', or , 'Your Honour, is that your voice?', or, 'Your Honour, did you say those things ? Your Honour, is there anything that you would like to say about the record? Is it in fact tampered with? Is it fabricated?' That would be a very simple way of getting a view on the authenticity of some of this material. On top of that the Prime Minister said that it was a gross invasion of privacy. Of course it is an invasion of privacy. It is an invasion of privacy whether it is taped legally or whether it is taped illegally. That is neither here nor there. That is the answer, and on top of that what are we told? Effectively we are told this: The Government reluctantly perhaps concedes that this Parliament is the only body with the constitutional power to determine allegations of misbehaviour against a Federal judge and what consequences should follow from any determination upon that question. Well, it could hardly do otherwise in view of the very plain terms of section 72(ii) of the Constitution. True it is that that may be its function, but as the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) pointed out the attitude of the Government is: 'We are not going to let you get there. We are going to look at the allegations, consider them ourselves and you will accept as final and conclusive our view as to whether you have a role to perform, a role which is after all our constitutional role. In short we will arrogate to the Executive of this country the question as to whether or not Parliament should be allowed to exercise its constitutional rights'. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(4.29) —The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) indicated in his speech an extraordinary view for somebody who has the background that he has. He talked about the fact that the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) raised what he referred to as 'specious nonsense that you must establish a prima facie case'. Let us just have a think about what the Opposition is talking about in this debate. It is talking about the alleged tapping of telephone conversations in l979-80. The honourable member for North Sydney talks about the fact that people would have recollections of what they said in telephone conversations in l979-80. He then went on to make the most extraordinary statement-I am talking on the question of privacy-that whether or not the phone conversations are legally or illegally tapped is neither here nor there. Mr Spender —I was basing that on the issue of privacy. Mr DUFFY —I said that. The honourable member said that on the issue of privacy it is neither here nor there whether the phone conversations were legally or illegally tapped. That is an extraordinary situation. The fact is that the honourable member knows the procedures that have to be gone through for a legal tapping. A warrant has to be issued. There is a very big difference. It is an extraordinary statement for the honourable member to make in relation to these phone taps. I move on to the other point raised by the honourable member here today. It related to the question of serious allegations. That is the sort of statement that has been made. The honourable member spoke about conversations and said, ' so it is alleged'. That is what the honourable member said. Let us have a look at what is alleged and let us also look at the question of authenticity. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith referred-it seems to me that the honourable member never listens-to the opinion of the New South Wales Solicitor- General. If the honourable member wants to make sneering, smart Alick remarks about the New South Wales Solicitor-General then do so. Mr Spender —I don't do that and you know it very well. Mr DUFFY —Some remarks were made from the front bench of the Opposition before. It is a pity they have not been repeated. The New South Wales Solicitor-General said: In some conversations there are changes in speech patterns and/or speed which are to the untrained ear suggestive of editing. She continued: Without full technical assessment it is not possible to exclude the possibility of 'editing' and/or 'patching' of conversations. I have requested the Commissioner of Police, who now has possession of the documents and tapes provided to the Attorney to undertake a full technical assessment of the tapes. This may be a lengthy process and, in any event, may not be reliable because the tapes are, as I have already stated, clearly not the original intercept recordings. That is the sort of basis upon which the Opposition suggests that somebody be dragged before this Parliament and have their name and reputation besmirched. The fact is that once that stuff hits the deck here and we debate matters raised by the Opposition, the Opposition knows as well as I do that honourable members sitting opposite will say what they want to say about anybody and hide behind parliamentary privilege. Not one of them would have the guts to go outside and say anything. That is what they are all about. Opposition members want to get this stuff in here so that they can smear people and make allegations against them; it does not matter what they say in here, and they know it. Mr Hodgman —I did outside the House this morning, comrade. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Denison is a ripper man to be interjecting. I am glad he said something. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Denison is the man who could not care less about what goes on if this matter is ultimately brought before the House because he denied the right, at a meeting of the Committee of Privileges, for somebody to be represented. The honourable member supported the ruling that Mr Wiley, in the Oakes case, should not have representation. It would be tremendous to see the honourable member deal with somebody before this House. The honourable member is shaking his head. Does he want to be reminded of the debate? Is he so thick that he wants to forget about it? I will tell him what was said on that occasion. Mr Spender —Should we not get back to the matter before us. Mr DUFFY —Yes, I think we will deal with him later. I deal now with the question of misbehaviour. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) called upon the historical facts and went back to the convention debates. It is interesting that the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith picked up something very quickly on that. He indicated that it was said in those debates that there was a need to protect judges from ill-considered actions. Let us have a look at that. The question of misbehaviour is the matter which was directly addressed by Mr Temby, QC, and despite the fact that Mr Temby did not pick up some matters which the learned honourable member for North Sydney said, if he had examined the matter, he would have picked up, nobody has suggested that there is any problem with the opinion given by Mr Temby. An interpretation of Mr Temby's report reads: Nor, in the opinion of Mr Temby, could the content of the material-if authentic - That, of course, is the issue with which I dealt earlier- support, in any way, a conclusion that there had been 'misbehaviour' within the meaning of section 72 of the Australian Constitution. Let us look at what Mr Temby actually said, and I am now dealing with his opinion, not the interpretation. He said: There is nothing in the material I have seen, assuming its authenticity,- which is a fairly big assumption- which would prove or in any way support the conclusion that (the Judge) has been guilty of misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72(ii) of the Constitution. At least ordinarily such misbehaviour must be in a manner pertaining to the office held although conviction for an infamous offence which renders the person concerned unfit to exercise the office is apparently sufficient. The authority for that which was quoted by Mr Temby was Quick and Garran. What Opposition members should think about is this. It appears that the honourable member for North Sydney considers it to be specious nonsense that a prima facie case must be established. Nobody on this side of the House considers that it is specious nonsense to establish a prima facie case. That is why the Attorney- General-- Mr Spender —The question-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney will please cease speaking across the table. He has had 10 minutes in this debate. He should show the Minister courtesy. Mr DUFFY —The behaviour of the Attorney-General (Senator Evans) has been impeccable, simply because the Attorney-General was not prepared to allow the sort of debate that we have had here today to go on willy-nilly until he had at least satisfied himself on the basis of the advice which he had received at that stage from the Director of Public Prosecutions Designate who is now the Director of Public Prosecutions and on the examination undertaken by Mr Temby leaving aside, as we said earlier, the total lack of authenticity in respect of these tapes as was indicated by the New South Wales Solicitor-General. In addition to that, Mr Temby, whether Opposition members like it or not-they can criticise Mr Temby as much as they like-- Mr Spender —No, I'm not criticising him, only his opinion. Mr DUFFY —No, the honourable member is not criticising him. He criticised his opinion on the basis that if the honourable member for North Sydney had examined the evidence he would not have missed out on things which Mr Temby missed. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) interjected at that stage and said: 'Oh, you know, there are very obvious omissions' as if to say: ' It is not bad coming from him'. The fact is that Mr Temby's opinion went along the track that was necessary for this matter to be examined before it went further. Mr Temby went straight to the point that was necessary. Mr Temby said, all the time, that he assumed the authenticity of the tapes, and even assuming the authenticity of the tapes he could not in any way support the conclusion that the judge was guilty of misbehaviour within the relevant section of the Constitution. Further than that there is another interesting aspect of this matter. I refer to what the Attorney said in the Senate on 28 February. He said: The opinion I have now received from the Solicitor-General, and which I now table, has substantially confirmed the test that Mr Temby applied. The Solicitor -General points out that the requirement under the Constitution is not conviction in a court of law but proof to the Parliament- It is important to note what he goes on to say. He said: Inasmuch as Parliament considers the matter,- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion has concluded. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969. The Chicken Meat Research Act established a joint Commonwealth-Industry scheme to undertake research for the Australian chicken meat industry. The research scheme is funded mainly by a levy imposed on meat chickens hatched, with the Commonwealth providing a matching contribution on expenditure from the levy on a dollar for dollar basis. The amendments in the Bill are of a minor nature aimed at facilitating the use of the funds for research. The principal amendment is to provide for two separate accounts within the trust account. This provision applies to a number of other research committees already. Levy receipts are matchable by the Commonwealth. Other receipts from sale of assets or produce from research projects, interest on investment of resources and penalties for late payment of levy are not matchable by the Commonwealth. In the past, access to the unmatchable reserves has been restricted by the need to exhaust the matchable funds first, and this does not normally occur because levy continues to be received regularly. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 223rd report of the Committee, relating to HMAS Tobruk, and seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CADMAN —I thank the House. This report details the findings of the Committee' s inquiry into the amphibious heavy lift ship-HMAS Tobruk-project of the Department of Defence. The inquiry was commenced following the Auditor-General's critical report on the HMAS Tobruk project in March 1982. Initially, the Committee planned to report on the findings of this inquiry in conjunction with its findings on other references from the Auditor-General's March 1982 report. However, because of the magnitude and the seriousness of the problems associated with the project, the Committee decided to issue a separate report on the matter . Among the issues reported on by the Committee are: the excess weight of Tobruk; The Defence Department's poor quality assurance, and its grossly inadequate on- site representation at the shipyard; the inoperative davit hoist system for the landing craft of the Tobruk; several alleged major design faults, including a lack of watertight integrity following damage; major deficiencies in the Defence Department's overall approach to project management; and the history of design-related problems with HMAS Tobruk in its air conditioning system, engine control system, deck mounting of forward cranes, excessive vibration, underdesigned auxiliary boilers, dangerous sewerage system and inadequate kit lockers. The Committee is most concerned about the variety of serious problems that were revealed during the inquiry. The Committee questions the failure of the Department of Defence to rectify technical problems which emerged during the HMAS Tobruk project. The Committee would not have expected the Department to have mismanaged the acquisition of a major piece of equipment. During this inquiry the Committee found that many highly significant events and documents were not readily brought to the attention of the Committee by the Department. Rather, their existence was revealed only after prolonged investigation and probing inquiry by the Committee. The Committee was not satisfied with this aspect of the Department's conduct, for it believed that a committee of the Australian Parliament should be given a full and frank account of all relevant events and documents pertinent to the matter under consideration. It is not a matter of receiving information on a 'need to know' basis. It is for the Committee to decide what material is relevant. I wish to comment further on two matters raised in this report. Firstly, during the Tobruk inquiry the Committee learnt of the tragic death of Naval Reserve Cabet Kenneth Dax and the critical findings of the subsequent board of inquiry, and the Department's review of the report of that board of inquiry. While the Department is to be congratulated for the thoroughness of the review of the board of inquiry report, it is, at the same time, to be severely censured for the deficiencies and mismanagement reported on by the review. The Committee is concerned at the way the Department handled the Dax family's request for information and compensation following the tragic death of their son, Kenneth. The Committee has carefully considered this issue and concludes that the amount of $3,550 is not an adequate amount to compensate for the death of a 14-year-old naval cadet and the subsequent distress to his family. The Committee recommends that the matter should be looked at again and a more adequate amount determined. Secondly, during the inquiry a question on the watertight integrity of HMAS Tobruk following damage was raised. The Committee heard evidence on this serious matter from a variety of sources at both public and in camera hearings, and carefully considered this allegation. The Committee remains doubtful about the watertight integrity of HMAS Tobruk in certain circumstances. In this report the Committee makes 33 recommendations for action by the Defence Department. Of these I wish to highlight one: That rectification of HMAS Tobruk's many serious technical problems should be carried out in advance of the scheduled refit. In the meantime consideration should be given to the operation of the ship to ensure its safety. The Committee wishes to emphasise that it does not question the concept of, or the need for, a ship such as HMAS Tobruk. Clearly, the existence and operation of a heavy lift ship like HMAS Tobruk is of benefit to the Australian defence forces and the Australian community. Similarly, in reporting on the findings of this inquiry the Committee does not question the role of the Australian shipbuilding industry in defence projects. The Committee emphasises that it does not wish to prejudice shipbuilding in Australia. It recognises the valuable contribution to the Australian economy made by Australian shipbuilding companies and their employees, and welcomes the development of this industry. The Committee believes that the recommendations of this inquiry will go some way towards improving overall project management and administration in the Department of Defence. However, there remains a need for project management in the Department and its related organisations to be further improved. As honourable members will be aware, the Committee will be undertaking a detailed and comprehensive examination into the Defence Department's overall project management and administration this year. With this in mind the Committee requests that the response to this report be available to the Committee on or before 1 September 1984. I commend the report to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson) —by leave-As a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and as an ex-serviceman, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. The report expresses concern about aspects of the HMAS Tobruk project. I hope the Department of Defence takes note of the criticisms and suggestions in it. The Department must realise that it is difficult to argue for a reasonable level of funding for our defence forces if there is a perception amongst politicians and the public in general that the Department is not making the best use of the resources it already has. Of course that includes public finance. I recognise better than most just how limited the capacity of our defence forces is and how badly extra money is required to upgrade that capacity. That is why it is so important that all defence projects be carefully managed. It is also important for Australia to achieve a high level of competence and independence in our defence industry and in the management of our defence projects. No country as isolated as Australia can afford to rely on other countries for the provision of its defence equipment. That very much includes naval ships. In comparison with our near neighbours and in comparison with our industrial capacity at the end of World War II, Australia is in poor shape. The Committee well recognises the problems of relearning skills, trades and management techniques in an area such as shipbuilding. These skills and techniques have been allowed to run down since World War II. They must be built up again. The job can be done in Australia. The performance of North Queensland Engineering Associates and its implementation of the patrol boat program deserves commendation. We look to a similar satisfactory record in the proposed FFG program at Williamstown, and later in the submarine program.The report mentions of the relationship between the Dax family and the Department of Defence after the death of Naval Cadet Kenneth Dax on 16 December 1981. The Committee's conclusions and recommendations are clear. I do not intend to repeat them. I certainly hope that should there be incidents of a similar kind in the future both the Department and the government of the day will be more sensitive and sympathetic in their approach to the family and relatives concerned. I am very pleased that the Public Accounts Committee has decided to extend its inquiries to the whole question of defence project management. The Committee will be adopting a positive approach and seeks the co-operation of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), the Department of Defence and private contractors. The Auditor-General identified some 150 projects with total costs exceeding $7,000m which are currently under way in the Department of Defence. It is a huge amount of public money. Our capital equipment costs are making it extremely difficult for the Services to provide funds for training, personal equipment and housing, to name but a few. That is all the more reason why these defence projects must be carefully managed. I look forward to serving on the Committee and taking part in the inquiry into defence project management. The terms of reference for that inquiry are being released at this time. I commend the Public Accounts Committee report on HMAS Tobruk. It was not an easy inquiry to conduct. The support staff who were involved are to be congratulated. If this report helps in eliminating some of the mistakes in future projects-some of the mistakes which have characterised the Tobruk project and the Success project which is still in progress-the Public Accounts Committee, the Australian people and the Department of Defence can be well satisfied. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —by leave-As a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts which was involved in the inquiry into HMAS Tobruk, I wish to make special reference to the recommendations of the Committee concerning project management. During our inquiries we discussed project management with a representative of a firm involved in large multi-million dollar projects not unlike the defence project that was involved in the Tobruk. It became very clear from those discussions that project management in that sort of private industry was very different from the project management of the Tobruk and that the Department of Defence had a great deal to learn from that efficiently run private industry, particularly in regard to the setting of goals, the continual quality assurance and quality control mechanisms and ensuring that a project management team of sufficient skill, using proper methods, was set up and continued to work. One of the great difficulties with the Tobruk was that the project management did not seem to be there quite a lot of the time or, if it was, the lines of communication were so slow and complex that a great deal of frustration was caused, a great deal of time was wasted and a great deal of money disappeared down the drain. It seems vital that the ordering and building of ships for military and civilian purposes should continue in Australia and that the skills of Australian shipbuilders should be retained and developed. In order to do that, project management in the appropriate department and in the shipbuilding yards should be efficient and up to date. The issues of quality control and quality assurance, of building skilled project management teams with clear and effective lines of communication should be of great concern to all those who may be involved in a project. The lessons which can be learnt from this report must be taken seriously. Many of the deficiencies in an otherwise fine ship came about through project management techniques which were not adequate for the job and which caused a great deal of unnecessary delay. Some of the deficiencies which still exist in the ship will not be corrected for some months to come. I wish to draw the attention of the Parliament to the recommendation that the fleet maintenance branch be included in naval project management teams. It is in the fleet maintenance branch that a great deal of the technical expertise in the Navy exists. It seemed a pity that that maintenance branch was not involved in the construction of the Tobruk and came in only later to repair and look after some of the difficulties that were caused by inefficient building. I believe that recommendation is of great importance. I very much hope that the Department will take it up and make absolutely certain that those people who will be charged with the responsibility of maintaining the equipment are engaged in the processes of construction. As has already been said, the Public Accounts Committee will be looking at project management in the Department this year. I certainly hope that some of the recommendations in this report will have been implemented when we talk about that again. I think that it is very important that those people who are engaged and trained in the defence of this country do not have to work with sub-standard equipment or equipment which does not come up to the original specifications. Those people have every reason to hope that they will not have to spend their time making second guesses about what their equipment will do. It is very important that the Department seek and take the best advice possible to improve its procedures so that ships which are and should be built in Australia do what they are meant to do, cost what they are planned to cost and become available at the time they are planned to become available. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —by leave-I second the remarks made by the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) in making it quite clear that the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, in bringing down its report on HMAS Tobruk, did not intend in any way to suggest that adequate shipbuilding cannot be done in Australia. I believe it is quite clear that we have the commercial resources for ship building. Indeed, we ought to be looking at maximising Australian participation in building ships of this kind. However, what has come out clearly from the report is that the Department of Defence-let us not mince our words-leaves much to be desired in its planning processes and indeed in the whole of its operations in relation to the supervision of these kinds of shipbuilding projects. I refer to two aspects that were of particular concern. If honourable members read the report and its recommendations they will find that the Committee was concerned about virtually the whole process from beginning to end. Matters discovered by the Committee gave rise to a situation whereby we had to examine earlier decision making, earlier inspections and what had supposedly taken place in the Department of Defence in relation to the original plans for the ship itself. Let me say that the planning process of the Department of Defence left much to be desired. From the very beginning there was some confusion as to what the appropriate course of action should be. In relation to the decision on the course of action, I read directly from the Committee's conclusions: the Department's design modifications were of such an extensive nature that either, they were beyond the Department's available design expertise to specify sufficient detail and oversight construction, or that the design expertise in the Department was not adequately applied to the project; Because of the extensive changes that were made to the original design, and the fact that it was not possible for the Department of Defence to oversee those changes, we had a situation where, in a sense, the project got out of control. By getting out of control in this way, the problems with the Tobruk arose. As I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, one of the things that we must ensure in the future, if we are to support Australian shipbuilding, is that that planning and design process is done in a proper and professional fashion. The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has to look at all the people in his Department who are responsible for these errors and take some action against them. What has occurred in the past is not good enough. It cannot simply be excused on the basis that they were learning from experience. The fact is that we should have known in advance about many of these problems that occurred and should have done something about them. The other thing that has been of concern to me and other members of the Committee, especially those members of the Committee who served in the previous Parliament, is that, in the first appearances before the Public Accounts Committee of the personnel from the Department of Defence, no reference was made to some of the serious problems which had arisen, including the death of Kenneth Dax. We considered it inexcusable that the Department appeared before the Committee and failed to bring up those important serious problems which had arisen with the Tobruk. Having witnessed both periods of the Committee's inquiries-that is, the period prior to the election and the period after the election-I personally believe that the Defence Department personnel misled the Committee. The Committee can only make observations and conclusions about these matters. It is up to the Government and the Minister to ensure that this kind of misleading of the Public Accounts Committee, and indeed of parliamentary committees generally, does not take place in future. In my view various forms of action need to be taken by the Minister to ensure, as I mentioned, firstly, the proper fulfilment of projects and, secondly, that if things go wrong in the Department of Defence, especially in the building area, they are reported properly and honestly to the Government, and to parliamentary committees if those committees are making inquiries. With those comments, let me say that the Committee has done an excellent job, especially the staff of the Committee, in getting to the bottom of these matters , in ensuring that every aspect of the problems of the Tobruk has been investigated and that the recommendations that we made in this report, if taken seriously by the Government-I am sure that they will be-will ensure that future shipbuilding programs will not run into the sorts of problems that we have run into. We must ensure that costs will be contained. Obviously that is in the interests of the Australian taxpayer. I commend the report to all honourable members. I am sure that Ministers involved with building projects of this kind have much to learn from it. 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)(5.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to regulate the use of the Advance Australia logo. On 13 October 1983 the Government announced its decision to introduce legislation so as to ensure, with effect from that date, that the logo is used only in accordance with the objectives of the Advance Australia campaign. The ultimate aim of that campaign is to stimulate demand for Australian goods and services. Consequently the unauthorised use of the logo and look-alike symbols is of considerable concern to the Government as it directly threatens to undermine the campaign and the financial viability of the Advance Australia company. Before I mention the main provisions in this Bill I will take a few moments to outline the background to Advance Australia. The Advance Australia campaign was launched in 1979 on the recommendation of the Australian Manufacturing Council, an advisory body to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. From 1979 to 1981, the campaign was managed by the Department of Industry and Commerce through the Project Australia Committee which included senior business executives, trade union officials and the Secretary to the Department to Industry and Commerce. Because of growth in private sector support and interest, a non-profit, public interest company, Advance Australia, was established in mid-1981 to manage the ongoing campaign. The Project Australia Committee became the board of the new company. In the period 1979 to 1983 the Government provided $5.14m to the campaign. A system of licensing arrangements involving the franchise of the Advance Australia logo was also developed to raise revenue for the campaign. These arrangements proved highly successful with over 700 companies actively participating and over $3m in revenue being raised through licensing since 1979. In 1982-83 $1.75m was raised from the licences. Because of this success, the Government ceased its contribution to the campaign on 30 June 1983 and the Advance Australia company is now a self-funding, private sector project. The Advance Australia campaign has been remarkably well received by the Australian community, achieving very high levels of public awareness and acceptance. It is estimated that the logo now appears in advertising and marketing activities involving more than $2 billion of Australian products. The challenge now facing the company is to maintain and build upon its success. However its financial viability and ongoing success are under threat because of the unauthorised use of the logo and a variety of look-alike symbols by some Australian and overseas companies. Furthermore the Government believes that the use of the logo and look-alike symbols on imported goods is misleading as consumers may be misled that the goods are manufactured in Australia. The unauthorised use of the logo is thus not only threatening the validity of licences issued by Advance Australia but is damaging the interests of existing licence holders. I now turn to the major provisions of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 8 vest ownership of the copyright of the logo in the Advance Australia company, make the Advance Australia company owner of the design of the logo and provide for the laws applicable to the ownership of personal property to apply also to ownership of the design of the logo. These provisions will allow the company to seek protection against unauthorised use of the design of the logo directly through the courts without the need for Commonwealth involvement. Generally speaking, the provisions of clause 11 provide for a prohibition on both the importation of articles bearing the logo and the production or sale in Australia, without licence, of articles which bear the logo. An action for infringement of the ownership of the design can be initiated by either Advance Australia or by a licence holder whose interests have been affected by the infringement. If these rights are infringed the courts may grant damages or a sum equal to the amount gained by the unauthorised use. Safeguard provisions have been incorporated into the Bill to protect the Commonwealth's interest and investment in the campaign. Clause 10 makes provision for the ownership of the logo to revert to the Commonwealth in the event of the company winding up or the Minister being satisfied that it is no longer in the public interest for the company to own the logo. The Minister is also empowered by clause 17 to give directions to the company in connection with the exercise of its powers in relation to the copyright and design of the logo. The company is also required by clause 18 to provide the Minister with an annual report detailing licences issued, amounts received and the application of those funds. The Government believes that it has a responsibility to protect the Australian firms which have, in good faith, actively supported the Advance Australia campaign and taken out product licences with the Advance Australia company to use the logo in their advertising and marketing. This legislation is therefore necessary to protect the logo and to ensure that the Advance Australia campaign will continue its success with the company having a sound basis for its future operations. The provisions of this Bill do not have any financial implications. I mentioned earlier that the Commonwealth ceased its financial contribution to the campaign on 30 June 1983. Advance Australia is now a self-funding, private sector project. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(5.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Quarantine Amendment Bill is to increase the penalties that may be imposed upon persons convicted of offences against the quarantine laws of Australia. The Bill also makes a number of other amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 to overcome some operational difficulties experienced with the Act, and to make it more responsive to modern situations. I wish to impress upon honourable members the seriousness with which the Government views breaches of quarantine. It is estimated that an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Australia would bring to a virtual standstill exports of meat and other commodities of livestock origin, and would cause a drop in rural output of the order of $2,500m in the first year. The penalties under the Quarantine Act were last increased in 1979 to the present maximum level of $10,000 or five years imprisonment. The rural sector has strongly pressed for further increases and has also complained about the inadequacy of fines imposed by the courts. As a deterrent to potential offenders , and as an inducement to the courts to provide higher penalties, the Bill at clause 27 provides for a substantial increase in penalties, particularly the penal sanctions. For example, the maximum penalty for importing a disease agent contrary to the Act is increased from $10,000 or imprisonment for five years to $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years, or both, or if the offender is a body corporate, $200,000. Where a quarantine emergency exists, any person who does not comply with a direction given to implement emergency measures taken by the Minister, or who hinders or obstructs such measures, will face a maximum penalty of $100,000 or imprisonment for 10 years, or both. The maximum penalty that currently exists is $10,000 or imprisonment for five years. I now turn to the other amendments in this Bill and address the more substantial provisions. Clause 5 provides for the appointment of the Director of Quarantine and chief quarantine officers by the Minister, and for the appointment of quarantine officers by the Director of Quarantine, instead of these appointments being made by the Governor-General. As there are about 1,700 quarantine officers throughout Australia this amendment will remove a considerable work load from the Governor-General. Clause 16 provides for the amendments of section 48 of the Act relating to goods ordered into quarantine. Section 48 provides that where goods ordered into quarantine cannot be effectively treated or disinfected and ought not to be released from quarantine, the goods may be destroyed. The clause amends section 48 to provide a review of the opinion of the quarantine officer immediately in charge of goods where those goods are live animals by vesting the decision to destroy the animals in a chief quarantine officer. The clause also includes a new provision to enable the owner of any goods to be notified where the goods cannot be treated without damaging them, so that the owner can be given an opportunity to agree to the course of action proposed. If the owner has not notified his intentions in relation to the goods within 30 days, the goods will be forfeited to the Commonwealth. Clause 18 extends the powers of inspection of a quarantine officer under the Act to a vessel that is beyond the territorial sea of Australia and is bound for Australia or the Cocos Islands, to the extent that the vessel is within nine nautical miles of the outer limits of the territorial sea. The Governor-General may proclaim a greater distance than nine nautical miles under the provision. The Government considers it desirable for the jurisdiction of the Quarantine Act to be extended over as much territory to which Australia has a legal right of influence as is possible for effective quarantine control. Recent developments in international law have enabled this extension of the powers of inspection. Clauses 20 and 21 provide powers of search relating to domestic animals in the Cocos Islands. These powers are presently contained in regulations 14 and 19 of the Quarantine (Cocos Islands) Regulations. They are being included in the Quarantine Act following reservations expressed by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances about the powers of quarantine officers to enter premises in the Cocos Islands, and advice by the Attorney-General's Department that the inclusion of such powers in subordinate legislation was inappropriate. Arrangements are in train for the repeal of the relevant regulations. Clause 25 provides for the Minister to have the power to determine the levels of fees for quarantine services instead of such fees being prescribed by regulation. Such determinations will be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament as the clause also provides that the determinations will be subject to certain provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. These provisions are for the laying of regulations before both Houses of Parliament, the disallowance of regulations, and the effect of the repeal of regulations. This provision will facilitate the introduction of new fee levels in accordance with the Government' s policy for the recovery of direct operating costs for quarantine services. Clause 26 of the Bill provides a new regulation making power to put beyond doubt the scope of the act to control the storage, use, movement and disposal of goods, including disease agents where the goods are permitted to be imported by the Minister or the Director of Quarantine for a particular purpose for use in a particular location, such as a research establishment or diagnostic laboratory. The remaining provisions of this Bill make minor amendments of a machinery or procedural nature in order to facilitate the more efficient administration of the Act. There will be no financial impact from any of these provisions. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Clauses 65 to 77. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.19) —When the consideration was interrupted, my friend opposite, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), had moved amendments to clauses 65 and 66 and had spoken to them. Those clauses relate to the right of appearance and to representation and the question of when inquiries may be held in private. As I understand it, my honourable friend's amendment to clause 65 provides for legal representation as a right. In respect of clause 66, his amendment is designed to entail an obligation to hold the inquiries in private as opposed to in public. One provision of clause 66 states: The Commission may, of its own motion or on the application of a party to the inquiry, if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, direct that an inquiry, or part of an inquiry, be held in private. In respect of clause 65 which deals with the right of appearance and to representation, we are unable to accept the amendments. The explanation with which I think the honourable member might agree falls into this category: This is a whole process of conciliation, and in the normal conciliation and arbitration proceedings it is not encouraged that there be the adversary aspect which might flow from having legal representation. This is an opportunity for the parties virtually to discuss their problems without the technical aspects of having an advocate so to do. It is thought that the parties can rely on the Human Rights Commission and to provide legal representation might be a deterrent to complainants and certainly might well prolong and formalise proceedings. However if counsel is appointed to assist the Commission, parties have an automatic right to legal representation. This means that the argument cannot be raised that parties can be overborne by cross examination if they do not have the option of having counsel to represent them. In that sense there is an opportunity for legal representation. In other cases, representation can be obtained with the leave of the Commission. But it is thought that it is not wise to have representation in all cases, and an amendment such as the Opposition suggests may cause problems for people who cannot afford legal representation, particularly if they do not qualify for legal aid. The Commission is not a court . Clause 77 of the Bill makes it clear that proceedings are to be conducted with as little formality as possible. Accordingly, in that sense clause 65 is in keeping with the spirit of conciliation and arbitration, and I think the honourable member for Balaclava would understand that. Clause 66 provides that an inquiry by the Commission is to be held in public unless the Commission of its own motion is satisfied that it could be held in private. The view is that unless circumstances require an in camera hearing proceedings should be public. Clause 67, the non-publication clause, allows for a prohibition of publication of evidence, and that will provide an added safeguard. Obviously there is some concern about the publicity which might have surrounded a recent case. However, clause 66 recognises that and notwithstanding that problem there is value in having public hearings. There are circumstances where it may be appropriate to have a hearing in private, and that can be accommodated. So the Government is unable to accept the amendments offered. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. L. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, 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.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. 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.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. 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.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.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.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Dobie, J. D. M. Brown, JohnHawker, D. P. M. Jones, Barry Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of the Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(5.30) —With regard to amendment No. (13) circulated in my name, I note from Senate Hansard at pages 4001 and 4002 that in the other place the Opposition accepted the explanation of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) regarding the meaning of clause 78 and did not divide upon it. I recognise that, in so doing, the spokesman for the Opposition was not 100 per cent convinced about the meaning of the clause, but certainly we would not wish to contribute to any delay in dealing with complaints, which is the administrative objective of clause 78. In the event that it appeared that any injustice was being done, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) to recognise that we sought to delete clause 78 because it looked as though it might have deprived one of the accused persons, if I may use that term in a non- technical sense, of some protection that was otherwise afforded by the legislation. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will give the House an assurance that it is an administrative matter designed to prevent the Human Rights Commission from being cluttered with administrative work; that in the event that it appears that anyone may suffer in some way in regard to the consideration of their case that will be rectified administratively if not legislatively. I now move: (14) Clause 81, page 37, at the end of sub-clause (1) add the following sub- paragraph: '(viii) a declaration that one party pay to the other party such amount as is assessed by the Commission to be the other party's costs of the inquiry'. I believe that the need for the sub-paragraph is self-evident. In any area of litigation or quasi-litigation it is expected that a power will reside in the adjudicating body to award costs. It is our view that, as the costs could be quite high, there ought to be at the end of the day a capacity in the Commission to determine which party should bear the costs or in what way they ought to be apportioned; that a declaration on that score ought to be made. We believe that is an appropriate addition to clause 81. I have no comment to make on the remainder of the Bill. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(5.35) —I have some questions concerning the operation of Part IV of the Bill, which relates to offences, that I would like to put to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). As he is a lawyer, I trust that I will receive a precise answer. First, would a pharmacist who stocks contraceptives but, as a matter of conscience, refuses to sell them to a single person under 20 years of age, for example, although willing to sell to a married person under the same age, in advertising that fact by perhaps putting up a small notice in the pharmacy, be committing an offence under clause 86 and thereby render himself liable to a fine of up to $1,000? My second question relates to a person who lives with his wife and young family in a house and also owns the house next door. If he wishes to rent that house to a married couple and family with children rather than to single people, and advertises to that effect in the local newspaper, is he committing an offence under clause 86 and thus liable to a fine of up to $1,000? The third example that I wish to put to the Deputy Prime Minister concerns a married couple who own a hotel or motel. Having worked in it for many years, and wishing to take some leave and a break away from the business, they would like to arrange for another married couple to come in and take over, residing on the premises while doing so. If they advertise to that effect in a newspaper will they be committing an offence under clause 86 and be liable for a fine of up to $1,000? I hope that the answers given by the Minister will be specific and not a discussion about whether such circumstances might actually occur. I believe that in some situations they could occur. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will assume that and give the Committee a precise answer to each of the three questions involved. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.38) —My question is related to the offences section, but deals specifically with the matter of non-government schools. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), in a Press release of 16 September 1983, said: It is not the Government's intention to damage the special character of non- government schools or to interfere with the conscientious beliefs and ethical standards of parents and educational authorities. It is my understanding that Senator Ryan has not since made a similar statement in regard to the current legislation. I point out to the House that that statement related to the original Bill, which was subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, can the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) give an assurance that, in regard to offences and the processes of the Bill, the statement made by Senator Ryan on 16 September 1983 will apply to the legislation as it stands now . Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.40) —I too have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister ( Mr Lionel Bowen). Clause 86 refers to advertisements. The definition of an advertisement includes everything, even a conversation in a hotel. After listing a considerable number of media-type arrangements the clause goes on to state 'or in any other way'. I am not really sure whether anyone would know what that meant. I take the Minister back to Division 4 which, of course, deals with the exemptions under which one would not be prosecuted for an advertisement. I will quote clause 30(2) and then ask the Minister how a person should advertise. Clause 30(2), in part, states: Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), it is a genuine occupational qualification, in relation to a particular position, to be a person of a particular sex (in this sub-section referred to as the 'relevant sex') if- and this is the area of great concern to me- (a) the duties of the position can be performed only by a person having particular physical attributes (other than attributes of strength or stamina) that are not possessed by persons of the opposite sex to the relevant sex; Having got through that mumbo jumbo, I submit to the Minister that that means that a person who advertises for a woman to perform as a topless barmaid would in fact commit no offence because she would require particular attributes not available to the average male. But I also suggest that a farmer who advertised for a strong male required for the purposes of, say, super carting, would commit an offence. I am astounded at the wording of that clause. Had I not been attending a committee meeting and had I been aware that clause 30 was to be debated this morning I would have addressed myself to the wording of this clause. I wonder whether that is in fact what the Government meant? Although we have a double negative in the wording of the clause the meaning is quite clear. But are the only physical attributes we will not consider those of stamina and strength which seem to be fairly obvious attributes in many forms of employment, ones which I thought would have differentiated between the male and the female in terms of employment? That is my clear reading of the clause. In responding to my request about advertising the Minister might tell me whether that is in fact what the Government means in this clause. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(5.43) —I wish to speak briefly on the offences section of the legislation. I am disappointed that nobody in the Committee has gone to the defence of Senator Harradine. I remember that I was pulled up during the debate when certain people objected to my having a slight tilt at the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women (Senator Ryan). Senator Harradine, who has nobody here to defend him at all, is perfectly entitled to say exactly what he feels in his heart and mind. Nobody has gone to his defence. Some outrageous attacks have been made on him in this House, particularly by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) who said certain things that were completely untrue. The honourable member tried to establish certain links between Senator Harradine, me and certain women's groups. I take offence to that. I hope that my colleagues will remember that Senator Harradine does not have anyone to defend him; he is on his own. At times I think he needs defending. We preach that we are not allowed to say things about a member of the other place, yet this man is completely vulnerable when he may follow a line of thinking that is compatible with that followed by some of us. We must remember that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.46) —I have a variety of matters to deal with. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) talked about the good sense of what we want to achieve in clause 78. He is not pressing ahead with his opposition to that clause. I accept that position. I also make the point-this might pick up some of the other points raised-that if there were what he might think was a miscarriage of justice there could be a rehearing in the Federal Court. So there is no suggestion that if it is felt that something has gone wrong under clause 78 that is the end of it. There would be an opportunity to deal with it if there was going to be some prosecution or furtherance of any determination that had been made. The thrust of this part of the legislation is getting an understanding about a complaint. We do not want to have discrimination. I come to another question that was raised about a pharmacist clearly indicating that he would not sell to certain people. Of course, we must accept the view that if he said that he would not sell to certain people, that would be an offence. That is the position. It would be an offence not to sell to single people because he would be discriminating. A question was raised about what we would do about married couples. Again, this comes to the issue of whether a person is discriminating. If we are letting a house we have to consider in what way the use of that home is affected. Mr Groom —The house next door. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a question of the way the house is affected. Mr Groom —It is the family of the individual. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —People may feel they would be affected but if one started to discriminate because of that it would be an offence. Mr Groom —It is an offence? The third one is an offence? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —What was the third one about? Mr Groom —The third one was that of a motel owner on leave who wants a married couple to come in and look after the motel and live on the premises. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am taking this on the run. I think that might well come within the exemption position because it would constitute living in the accommodation. Mr Groom —No, they have gone on leave for six months. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There could be an argument about whether they are living in the accommodation because they might have relatives there or friends. In other words , there are exemption provisions. It may be an offence, but it may not be an offence in terms of the facts. The problem I am having at the moment relates to the question about topless waitresses. Mr Tuckey —I actually took you back to clause 30(1)(a) and asked about advertising. Is that what you meant? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think the argument is that strength applies to both sexes. Admittedly, a person could use the argument that he needed more strength than one sex might be able to provide. I think that could be a matter of judgment. Mr Tuckey —You specifically intended to exclude strength from the exemptions? That is really what I am on about. Is that what you meant? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think so. Mr Groom —But as far as sport is concerned, you accept different strengths. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. I think we are getting into an area of detail. I am not going to make a judgment on the basis of what the honourable member said. I think the only other matter was the question that somebody raised about the schools. The Bill contains an exemption to clause 38 to cover the special character of non-government schools. In other words, there would not be any problem with what the Opposition has in mind; that is, the question of conscientious belief relating to religious tenets and matters of that nature. In other words there is an opportunity to exercise discrimination in that area. Mr Cadman —It applies specifically. The ethical standards of parents in the educational authorities was mentioned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Opposition wants reassurance. I see no problem. I think I have got over this quiz session that has suddenly come on me at this late hour. Section 86 and the penalty that might be imposed were referred to. Everybody seemed to forget the penalty and think up a few propositions that might well be the subject of commissions of inquiry. It would depend on the facts in many cases. I do not know that there are any more comments I want to make except to thank the Committee for its consideration of this matter. I think the legislation has been dealt with much more expeditiously here, and certainly to the point. The Government will be very anxious to see it come into fruition, certainly by tomorrow, which is a very significant day. On that score we would be able to say that this legislation would be the subject of continual trial in the terms of public opinion and in the terms of how it is administered. I think it augurs very well to think that in this democracy we can bring into a form of statute the abolition of discrimination. I do not think anybody has been against that. The whole issue is the interpretation of what discrimination is, whether it is in accordance with the tenets of public opinion. Certainly there is always the great safeguard that if some legislation is interpreted wrongly, public opinion will guarantee it changes. There is no doubt about that. So we give an assurance to everybody that that is what we will do. I think I am being encouraged to make the points-I think Archbishop Carroll wrote a letter on this-concerning the question of conscience. We have to make the point that one can be discriminatory and appear to say that one is acting with a conscientious belief, but one cannot be exempted if in fact one discriminates. We must make that very clear. Whilst we do not want to go over all the details, the Government will not accept the argument that there is need for an exemption on the basis of a genuinely held conscientious belief. It might be in mitigation, but we cannot say that a person has a genuinely held conscientious belief, therefore he can discriminate. That would just destroy the whole aspect of anti- discrimination legislation. In other words, nobody with a conscientious belief has the right to interpret what he thinks ought to be the situation. If people want to commit an offence against a person because they have a conscientious belief in the normal prohibition of law, it is no defence to say that they have a conscientious belief, although it might be a mitigation of penalty. Mr Groom —It is a reasonable conscientious belief. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question of reason comes to the subjective test as to whether they thought it was reasonable or whether the person discriminated against thought it was unreasonable. The issue is that there has to be discrimination. In other words somebody else is going to be affected. I do not think we can get away with the theory that because a person has a belief, therefore the other person has to suffer a discrimination. I think that is the test. One could obviously be wrong and hold a belief that one is right; yet if somebody else is going to bear the burden of that I do not think that can be sustained in law. It might be sustained in the concept of whether an offence had been committed against what one would call principles of Christian conduct because one had a conscientious belief, even though one was wrong. In fact it calls into question, does it not, as far as the Archbishop is concerned, whether the conduct is sinful. Perhaps it is not if one had a conscientious belief that it was not; whereas the act would be sinful except for the conscientious belief. That is an argument no lawyer can explain here from the point of view of penalty . The test is that if a conscientious belief imposes a discrimination on another person, that person does not have to bear that burden. I trust His Grace understands what we are about in that area. I thank everybody for their remarks. Mr Macphee —What about costs? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I apologise. That was an amendment relating to clause 81, which was moved in the Senate. There was an amendment that costs could be awarded. Again we come to the point that we do not want to encourage costs because we are trying to talk about conciliation and arbitration. They are not normally awarded in that area. We make the point that we would be against the idea of having a provision where costs were awarded. The Bill makes provision in clause 83 for the Commission to make recommendations to the Attorney-General concerning the reimbursement of expenses incurred by a successful party. To include such a provision would encourage more legalistic proceedings-this is the view of the Government-and it can certainly make them more formal, more extensive and, as some of the wits have said, might even lead to a lawyer-led recovery, but we will not emphasise it here. To insert a provision as to costs has the effect of making the determination enforceable in the Federal Court. It would be incongruous if all else were agreed if the only action taken in court was on the question of costs. On that basis the Government is not able to accept the strength of the amendment that costs can be awarded. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.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. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) 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. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.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. Young, M. J. Dobie, J. D. M. Brown, JohnHawker, D. P. M. Jones, Barry Question so resolved in the negative. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(6.5) —In the closing stages of this debate, I believe it is important to affirm yet again that this Liberal-National Party Opposition stands firmly against discrimination in any form, including discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status or pregnancy, which this measure seeks to outlaw. The record of the Liberal-National Party in government, as set out by my colleague, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) in opening this debate, bears witness to that despite the best efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in speaking in this debate the other day to disparage that record. How could it be otherwise? After all, the charter of the United Nations in affirming faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and infinite worth of each individual human being, stresses the equal rights of men and women as does the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The matter is, especially in our Christian tradition, beyond dispute. As I said, I believe it is important, in the closing stages of the debate, to affirm to the people of Australia that there is no question but that the Opposition in this Parliament stands firmly against discrimination in any form including discrimination on the grounds of sex, in particular. Therefore, while some Opposition senators in the other place and a number of my colleagues and friends in this place have felt obliged to oppose this measure, that stand has never been directed to the objectives of the Sex Discrimination Bill but rather against the means adopted by the Government to obtain those objectives. For my own part, while sharing their reservations in some measure, I am entirely committed to the thrust of this Bill-and the original Bill having been substantially changed from the form in which it was introduced and, despite the quite summary and often illogical rejection of the very valid amendments introduced into this House I will assuredly vote for the Bill. In my view the Liberal Party, to which I am proud to belong, would fail to live up to its highest ideals if it were not to accept the responsibility to do all it could to promote the greater equality of opportunity and freedom of choice of lifestyle for women as for men which is what this Bill is all about. That this cannot be done by laws alone, as a number of my colleagues have been at pains to point out, is acknowledged. Nevertheless, the law is one way, and an important way, in which to respond to social change, first as a clear statement of public policy and further, because even laws like this one have significant effects on conduct as well as giving redress to those discriminated against. The extent of discrimination against women in Australia-other speakers have already largely covered this ground, but it is certainly the beginning of wisdom in this matter- needs to be stressed again. How can anyone see it for what it is and rest easy? We can start with a look around this chamber. Of the 125 members, only six are women. Mr Morrison —All on this side. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes; I blush with shame to acknowledge that not one is on this side of the House. Mr Keogh —Are you going to do something about it? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —We will see what can be done. All the great institutions are affected. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, despite its supportive rhetoric, only last year appointed the first woman to its executive. Only late last year the Returned Services League congress had its first woman delegate in 67 years. In the business world, in education and in the Public Service the same lack of female representation, especially at the higher levels, is apparent. Note how few women are on public company boards. Again, despite equal pay judgments, given the industries in which women employees predominate female rates of pay for the full time working week are, on average, only of the order of 75 per cent of the male rate. As was mentioned in Question Time in this place the other day, female participation in apprenticeships is of the order of 5 per cent, but it is only 2 per cent if we exclude hairdressing. There is no need to go on. Discrimination against women is deeply ingrained in Australian life, and that it is so deeply ingrained is beyond dispute. The purpose of this Bill is to help even up the balance, at present tilted very sharply against one half of the community. I concede it will be a slow process. The history of anti-discrimination legislation, including the similar legislation which already exists in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia-the very existence of those laws comes as a surprise to many people because of all the phoney ballyhoo we have had about this Bill-shows that significant change is not created overnight. Such is life, but there is no reason for not trying. To paraphrase a famous line, we might say that this legislation is a small but very necessary step for womankind. I want to make only two further points. The first is that while the original Bill was undoubtedly an ill-considered and poorly drafted document, the Bill now before the House incorporates more than 53 changes. On the basis of the extremely valid but rejected amendments we put during the Committee stage, I wish it incorporated a few more. In general, those 53 changes were made by the Government in response to representations by the Opposition and other interested individuals and organisations. In short, the Government has come a long way down the road towards accommodating major legitimate objections to its original proposals. Specifically, the freedom of action of religious schools will now be preserved, though there is still a problem with schools unattached to any particular denomination. The Bill cannot now be used to force unwilling persons to participate in abortion procedures. The initial provisions infringing upon civil liberties have been substantially removed and, in contrast to Senator Ryan 's 1981 private member's Bill, the present measure does not provide for so- called affirmative action. In particular, I stress that this Bill does not, as many have affirmed to the contrary, interfere with religious or family values and it will not force women or men into roles they may not wish to undertake. Nothing in this Bill pressures women to go into the work force if it is their preference to remain at home solely as wives and mothers-a right and proper preference. This legislation is, though, an attempt, as I said so far as the law can assist, to give women who want to go into the work force the opportunity to do so without the problems of discrimination that now prevail, and with greater equality of opportunity and equality of status. The final point I make is that there can be no doubt that the Government and the Opposition alike regard this Bill as significant. In the light of that significance it may well be appropriate, as suggested by a number of my Senate colleagues last year, for a parliamentary committee to review the operation of the legislation in a few years to ensure that the positive results we hope for are achieved and, if they are not, to amend the legislation to ensure they are. But for now, the measure before the House is a symbol of the commitment of this Parliament to remove barriers of practice and law to the achievement of equality of opportunity regardless of sex. It is an important part-but, as I readily conceded, only a part-of helping to change those discriminatory attitudes and practices which not only restrict the rights of women to equality of opportunity and freedom of choice but also effectively squander so much of the potential of over 50 per cent of this country's human resources. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(6.l7) —I want to make a short statement in this third reading debate of the Sex Discrimination Bill. As many honourable members would know, I was one of a number of members of the Liberal Party who had some major reservations about the Bill in its original form. I am pleased that the position of independent schools has been greatly improved as a result of amendments made by the Government. I welcome that. On balance, I have decided to vote in favour of the third reading of the Bill because its broad objectives outweigh the reservations that I continue to have. I must say I am a profound sceptic of the value of legislating conduct, and I am a profound sceptic of the value to our society of the Human Rights Commission. I acknowledge that the Human Rights Commission was established by the former Government and this is barely the place to attack the Commission as a concept, but I am profoundly sceptical of its value. That matter really belongs to another debate. There is no doubt that amongst the less privileged in our community, amongst ethnic groups, there are incidences of discrimination and disadvantage against women which are not present within some of the more conservative or Anglo-Saxon elements of our society. I think the Bill will be of value in respect of that, and I welcome the effect it will have. In deciding to vote for the third reading of the Bill, I should say I certainly have major reservations about the concept of affirmative action legislation and I certainly do not regard support of this legislation as being indicative of support for that. As the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) said, overall the Bill represents a broad-based expression of view about attitudes and whilst I have the reservations I have mentioned I believe the Bill has been sufficiently improved to enable it to be supported. I take this opportunity to compliment the work of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) on this difficult piece of legislation. As some may know, occasionally the honourable member and I have a marginal shade of difference on the odd matter but on this occasion the honourable member has worked very hard. Although there are many things about the Bill on which he and I still disagree, I compliment the commitment that he has given to this legislation and the way in which he has gone about his task. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(6.20) —I will be voting against the Sex Discrimination Bill at the third reading. My reasons might surprise some honourable members present. I have no objection whatsoever to the concept of the rights of women, be they married, pregnant or otherwise, but I have deep objections to this Bill. Over many years I have managed to recognise the rights of women, even in the business which I conducted. As I have pointed out time and time again, the first women in Australia to receive equal pay under an award were women working in the hotel industry in Western Australia. That never deterred me from employing them. I chose them and often preferred to have them working for me. I made judgments on ability, never on sex. What is more, I am proud to say that my mother saw herself very much as a campaigner for women's rights. My mother is living and is 83 years old. Honourable members could well understand the types of rights which she sought for women. One of them was to stop governments imposing a gift tax, which was imposed on my father when he chose to make my mother a half-owner of the family home. That was the type of discrimination that existed in our laws. That is the discrimination which we should rightly remove. Today I want to make a point about the responsibility of government to remove discrimination wherever it occurs, but not to create legislation that discriminates in each arena in which it tries to remove discrimination. This Bill is about transferring discrimination. It transfers discrimination from employees, which is good, to employers, which is bad. It transfers discrimination from tenants, which is good, to landlords, which is bad. It transfers discrimination from those opposed to the basic standards set down in Australian society today to those who support those standards. Government members-Oh! Mr TUCKEY —Obviously honourable members opposite have not read the Bill. It transfers discrimination from the rights of the accused to the rights of the accusers. That is something which I do not think exists in any other piece of legislation. The attempts of the Opposition today to change that have been unsuccessful, as honourable members opposite well know. That is the type of discrimination which this piece of paper introduces to Australian society. It entrenches the rights of an institution, such as a church. The Government's amendments have agreed to the rights of a church to discriminate on the grounds of marriage, but the Government has refused to give that right to an individual. It refuses the rights to an individual to discriminate even though that person may be a practising member of that church. Let us remember the style of discrimination that people want to practice. For instance, they might say that they would like to lease a house in Canberra, which is next door to the house in which they live and has no fence-this example was raised earlier-to a married couple because they have a deep commitment to marriage. Under this legislation those people will be discriminated against. The minute we pass this legislation those people will be discriminated-- Mr Hand —No, they are not. Mr TUCKEY —Gerry, you are showing absolute ignorance of this Bill if you do not understand that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member will direct his comments through the Chair. The honourable member for Melbourne will not interject. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; you are quite right. All this is to be achieved by the creation of a commission. I know of the Government's commitment to resolving unemployment. I know that it will create jobs whenever it can, but now we will be creating a very large number of jobs to achieve something that has been evolving in Australia for many years. I questioned the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) the other day when he told us of the great improvements women had achieved for themselves, and quite rightly so. I said to him: 'Which legislation achieved that?'. The Minister then started to name some. I thought about that. I tend to agree that there has been some legislation which achieved that. Certainly there has been legislation which has achieved equal pay for women. That legislation was quite positive, but basically it removed the discrimination of paying people different salaries. When one looks at many other pieces of legislative activity one sees that in each case discrimination that existed in legislation was removed. But this Bill is not about removing discrimination that exists in government legislation. It is about imposing discrimination on people who no longer wish or have never wished to accept a particular philosophy expounded by some 70 people in this place. That is the great difference between this legislation and legislative action that has in the past removed legislative discrimination against women and, for that matter, discrimination as far as sex is concerned. Mr Hand —Time. Mr TUCKEY —When I hear someone say 'time' I usually gather that that person does not like hearing what I have to say because it is embarrassing to that person. Another matter I want to refer to in my speech is the regular occurrence of speakers on both sides of the House telling us how discriminated against women must be. They cite figures and tell us, for instance, that there are only so many women in this place, in a particular work force, et cetera. I have a favourite statistic that I like to cite when people start running their statistics. It is a statistical fact that lions have killed more Western Australians than sharks have. But I can inform honourable members that when I go swimming I take a lot more care than I do when I go bushwalking. Quite clearly, statistics prove nothing, as that statistic does not. It is quite ridiculous, but it is an absolute fact. The honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) would know why. They used to climb the fence into the zoo in South Perth. Mr Hand —Women? Mr TUCKEY —No, people wishing to commit suicide. The fact that I am trying to put to honourable members is that statistics are grossly ridiculous. They are ridiculous to use in the context of this debate. There are numerous reasons why women do not have the same numbers as men in the work force. Some of the reasons are probably unfortunate and wrong. One reason that women do not enter the work force in the same numbers as men is that they do not always choose to do so. This Government should be about the right to choose. Mrs Kelly —It is. Mr TUCKEY —We will see about that. We will see about the right to choose. There is a lady sitting in this place-I believe she is still sitting behind me-whose photograph appears in a newspaper above an article which states what will happen to us immediately this Bill is passed. The article appears under the heading ' Enforce affirmative action: Green Paper'. This lady might go back to the other place shortly and deny all this, but I would say that the leak probably came from her office; it is too detailed. The article states: Companies should be legally bound to implement affirmative action programs for women employees and report annually to an affirmative action commissioner,- There is to be another one of them which means even more jobs for the boys. The article continues: says a discussion paper prepared by the Federal Government. That article appeared at page 9 in the Melbourne Age of 2 March l984. There has been plenty of time to deny it. We have been told in relation to this Bill that we will not have affirmative action. Affirmative action is a fine term, but I do not know who will define it. Certainly it is not defined in this Bill. I gather that affirmative action could probably be described as putting your money where your mouth is; in other words, following your own principles. I believe that is a message to all the civil servants currently employed in Australia by at least the Commonwealth Government, which has put this legislation in place and is proposing, therefore, to have its affirmative action follow the principles laid down in its legislation and consequently-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to stick to the subject matter of this legislation. Mr TUCKEY —I would have thought that on this Bill, and with the discussion on affirmative action that has occurred to date, it is very relevant, and I ask to be able to complete my few words in this regard. The point I wish to raise again on this is, of course, discrimination. Mr Cunningham —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the ruling that you just made that the honourable member should return to the Bill, he has debated your ruling and then proceeded on his merry way. I think you should stick to your ruling and make him stick to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order but I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to take note of my comments. Mr TUCKEY —I will stick to the Bill but I again raise the point that there has been considerable discussion of affirmative action in the debates to date. That is as far as I have gone. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I hope you do not start to debate the ruling of the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —I will take your ruling to stick to the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I do not believe I have transgressed that ruling. This Bill states that the only way that discrimination cannot apply is to apply quotas to the employment of the sexes in, say, the civil service-I give that as an example. I ask honourable members to think of the discrimination that might occur when we find in the work force a distortion that is created suddenly, or even over a period-- Mr Cunningham —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The remarks that the honourable member for O'Connor is making are certainly nothing to do with the Bill. He is trying to get round your ruling. I suggest that he come back to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I take the point of order and I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to remain relevant to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I accept your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is quite clear that the Government is imposing in this Bill-I refer to the Bill and nothing else-a massive sham on the Australian people and this Parliament. The Government has denied time and again that there will be any move to affirmative action. What is it doing? It is too embarrassed even to let me raise some examples of the consequences of that. It is a shame. It is deliberate. The Government will go ahead with it and the quicker the Australian public knows of another one of its tricks, the better. There would be no other reason to stop me. I have a few minutes left and that is my entitlement. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) is happy to let me talk on anything but affirmative action. That is absolute proof of the Government's intention. The Australian work force and the civil service will soon see men having to stay at home because the only member of the family who can get a job will be the wife, which may not be her choice. Ms Fatin —Ha, ha! Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member for Canning should not laugh about it. That is her intention. She would be thrilled to bits to see that. I do not care if within that family that is its own decision. I am suggesting that in many cases it may not be the decision. More than anything, I am saying that the Government has misled the Parliament today in all its statements saying that it would not do it. That was adequately proved by the honourable member for McMillan trying to interrupt my speech in that regard. He was not in the least bit concerned about anything else. What will be the result of this? As is usual with this type of legislation, as with many other pieces of legislation, the public will learn. It will learn not to advertise this and not to advertise that. The Commissioner has no hope, for instance, of getting into the 700,000 small businesses in this country which employ fewer than 10 people to find out what they are doing behind his back. The Government has made a law that it cannot police. It will be abused by a few and the rest will go on their merry way. They will not advertise their preferences any more. That is what the Government has delivered. It has delivered another inquisition. It will be like the 1,400 inquisitors it has put in to chase pensioners. Now it will have another mob of inquisitors to chase small business people. I can tell the Government that it will be rejected by them. We will have a highly paid Commissioner sitting down listening to a few of these things. The other day, in thinking about the field of sexual harassment, I wondered how a female member of this place will feel in future under this legislation when she hears the Speaker say: 'Close the doors'. Mr Hand —I do not understand that. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member would not understand it. He is not quick enough . But it is not a bad joke. I hope some of my comments are realised. I am against the Bill-not the concept of anything that it attempts to do. It fails to do it miserably. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(6.35) —My support of the Sex Discrimination Bill has not been dependent upon the acceptance of the amendments and, therefore, I am pleased to speak briefly at the third reading in support of it. I do so knowing that my State has been a pioneer in matters of anti-discrimination legislation. I pay tribute to a former Premier of South Australia, Mr David Tonkin, who when he was in opposition in 1975 saw his earlier moves come to fruition when a Bill was passed through the South Australian Parliament on this matter. In addition to that, the South Australian division of the Liberal Party of Australia is keenly aware of this issue and the women's council of that division is very much in support of this type of legislation. I am pleased to support it personally and on the basis of my State and my Party's involvement in the issue. I have a State parliamentary colleague, the honourable member for Coles, Mrs Adamson, who has put an interesting slant on this issue in the addresses that she has given on the matter. She takes the hypothetical view of what would happen in the community if parliaments were dominated by women instead of men. Of course, here we have a parliament almost totally dominated by men, with some notable exceptions to whom the Australian Labor Party is very proud to refer. Of course, it is justified in its pride in the sense that it has more women in the Parliament than we do. In her addresses Mrs Adamson goes through a list of what would be different in the community if parliaments were indeed composed of a majority of women. Without knowing all the points she makes, it is interesting to run through some that are similar. She points out that, of course, financial institutions would have no bias in favour of men. There would be far more child minding centres in the community. The tax system would be adjusted to take out inequalities and no doubt there would be some form of tax splitting in single income families. She points out that hours of work would be staggered to allow women to work more flexible hours to suit their family obligations. There would be a much better retention rate in education because much closer attention would be given to children's needs. There would be more kindergartens. There would be less procrastination and delay in the administration of family law and there would be a greater emphasis on sex education. Those are just a few things that one can list that would be different in this community if we had parliaments dominated by women. I believe that is a very proper way to approach this issue. The scene as I see it in relation to this legislation is to encourage an attitude of mind. I do not expect there to be punitive hunts, that people will be hunted down or prosecuted to any degree. The movement around Australia in this form of legislation is to encourage a different frame of mind and it will be a long process. Nothing will happen next year to any great degree that did not happen this year. It will be a long process of encouragement. As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said, it will be governed by political acceptance of this in the community. If any government were to seize this legislation and administer it in a heavy handed fashion it would lose political support. It would be a very direct equation; it would be very quickly translated into a loss of voting support. The Government would be changed possibly on that issue alone, and we would have the legislation amended. Of course, as one who supports the legislation now, I say quite freely that if it does not work or if something needs to be changed in it, I would be the first to support amendments to remedy the difficulties that may arise. I am sure that those who originated the legislation would see it as being somewhat experimental and would themselves be prepared to look at amendments as soon as they are required. It is a sobering thought, of course, that exemptions are given on religious grounds. I do not want to develop that thought further, but it is a sobering and disappointing thought that the provisions have been put into this legislation. I support these provisions because I can see no way of not putting them in with the community as we have it, but I am disappointed that it is on religious grounds that some discrimination is allowed. I believe the legislation is an example to the rest of the world. I do not say that with any sort of overwhelming sense of the importance of Australia to the rest of the world, but we have to give a lead, along with other nations which adopt this sort of legislation. Discrimination on grounds of sex and race are of very great dimension in many sections of the world. Such discrimination will go on for a long time into the future. Examples need to be given from what, it is to be hoped, are the more developed communities so that changes can be encouraged in the more backward ones. I believe that is something that has not been largely emphasised in the debate on this legislation, but for me it is one of the most important aspects to be considered in accepting it. Dr Harry Edwards —That is why the Convention is so important. Mr STEELE HALL —Of course, as my colleague says, that is why the Convention is so important. Thus I support the legislation, not because it will do all the intricate things that some who are concerned about it think it will do, but simply because it will encourage equality in this community. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(6.42) —The Opposition is disappointed that the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Bill which we proposed were rejected. The Bill is, however, as has been observed, a considerable improvement on the original. We fully expect that when the Bill is actually implemented the Government will need to rectify some of the defects and other blemishes to which we have pointed. In spite of that disappointment, I intend to vote for the Bill as I believe it is legislation of a very important character. Some people who have been opposed to the Bill in the general public debate have said that the legislation demeans the status of women who choose not to enter the paid work force. The Bill removes barriers which demean the status of women who seek to enter the paid work force. It may be that some married women feel less secure than they would like because of a desire of some others to have both a career and their own family life. Opposition to this Bill obviously will not alleviate that insecurity. It has also been asserted by some that the Bill will encourage the breakdown of the family unit by enticing more women into the work force. Of course, it does not entice them but merely seeks to remove barriers to women who feel obliged by economic circumstances or who wish to enter the paid work force. Nothing in this Bill or indeed any other Bill as such can encourage or prevent the breakdown of a marriage. Other policies of government outside the range of this Bill can help to alleviate strains that often cause the destruction of marriages. It has been said that the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women has made Australia subject to external interference in our domestic law. The fact is that provisions which were complained of are similar to those which are in other international instruments to which we have subscribed. In practice, there will not be, as there has not been in other areas, interference in our domestic laws by any external organisation or other country. It is often said that supporters of this Bill are young feminist activists who are against the traditional role of wife and mother. The truth is, of course, that ordinary Australian men and women support this legislation. They believe that discrimination is wrong and that we ought to enable people, not oblige them , to exercise individual choice. They believe also that individual and family life may be enriched by enabling men and women to share responsibilities at home and in the paid work force. Of course, people, including me, sometimes get a bit militant when the progress is slower than it ought to be. Many people feel ill at ease in a world in which there have been rapid changes of attitude. That, I think, underlies some of the opposition to legislation of this character. Indirect discrimination has been one of the areas exposed by State legislation that have been most disturbing. Those areas of indirect discrimination have been dealt with by this legislation. They underlie some of the greater concerns that are now being expressed. Thus, it is one thing to remove, for example, the ban on married women being permanent public servants; that is, a ban that most of us recall being in existence not very many years ago. It is quite another thing to remove from the promotion criteria an emphasis upon length of service. If a major criterion for promotion is seniority or length of service, by definition, a woman who has left the Service temporarily to bear and rear children faces a barrier compared with men or women who have remained in the Service uninterrupted. Thus the designers of job and management generally have the task of examining the repercussions of this less direct but very real discrimination which women suffer. That is the next step in the education process. Similarly, there are presumed capacities to do so-called heavy work, to which the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) referred. I would have thought that the farmer who wanted a strong person would actually advertise for a strong person. In fact, nine times out of ten, it might be a male. Mr Tuckey —Just advertise for a man. Mr MACPHEE —No, the honourable member for O'Connor is quite wrong. There are plenty of case studies to testify to this. For example, Esso has published material about its experiences at Sale where it was assumed that any male who applied for jobs with certain specifications, would get the job if healthy. Jobs which involved going up ladders, lifting heavy lids off cylinders and putting gauges into the cylinders had to be occupied by a male. In fact, when Esso decided to open the job to females, the males helped design the job specifications which set out certain strength requirements. They were then amazed at the number of males who failed the test and the number of females who passed it. Mr MacKellar —What about league football? Mr MACPHEE —I hear mention of league football. The New South Wales Rugby League is now admitting females as referees. I will not reduce the debate to an absurdity about sports which people choose to play on the basis of sex. It is important that in the way in which people earn their living no one should presume certain characteristics on the basis of sex. Of course, there are other areas of discrimination which I do not believe I need to go into, with the exception of the job interview situation. As is frequently said, at a job interview a woman is asked whether she plans to start a family. She may be asked various indirect questions aimed at ascertaining an answer to that question on the basis that people want to know how long she will stay in the job. Men are not asked that question, because they cannot become pregnant. They are not asked a question about whether they might be attracted to employment elsewhere by an increased wage offer. It is questioning the assumptions of people that is so important. If at the end of the day the only common sense is that a person of a particular sex should be employed, that will be the situation. The reason progress has been made in this field is not due to the absence of legislation but to the existence of legislation in three States. That has helped the public debate greatly. This legislation will help the public debate still further. I just hope that 20 years from now our children, especially female children, will not find in their way in the areas covered by this legislation the barriers which have been there for the last 20 years. One just hopes that this will be one more step in the education process. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(6.50) —in reply-I want to thank all honourable members for their participation. This has been a rather extensive third reading debate. The purpose of the third reading debate is to indicate basically that one either agrees or disagrees with the Bill. I note that there have been some comments that the Sex Discrimination Bill is not altogether what some honourable members would like it to be. I want to congratulate the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) for his approach to this legislation. It has been basically one of support. I think it is very important in the Australian context that in matters of this nature the people of Australia see some consensus in our attempts to make a strong democracy. Let me make it very clear that on 18 December 1979-I think this is of some significance-the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women was adopted. I note that the Australian women who were at that Convention participated in the drafting of the text. Australia was amongst the early signatories of that Convention at the initial stage. In fairness to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) I suggest that he misunderstands the position of sex and discrimination. I think that is basically it. The only problem with his argument is that if it is a question of ability-he keeps making that point-there is nothing wrong with the Bill. One cannot discriminate against ability but one can discriminate against sex. The honourable member seems to be getting confused. I know that no matter how long we tried to argue the matter here we would never get the Bill through to the honourable gentleman. The other point that the honourable member raised had some thrust, in the sense that he felt there would be some affirmative action campaign because a newspaper article had said so. I am reminded that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the second reading debate gave a very firm assurance that the article was without any foundation. Honourable members interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Public opinion will always be reminded of our promises and accordingly we expect to remain here for a long while. Honourable members opposite must not get too carried away with what I have just said. The point is that the Prime Minister said in the second reading debate that he totally rejected that newspaper report. He said: . . . the Government has no intention of imposing anything on the private sector that is unrealistic or unworkable. It would be utterly counter-productive to do so. I make that point and ask honourable members opposite not to get too carried away with the politics of it. We on the Government side want to congratulate the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) for her efforts in bringing this legislation forward. Mr McGauran —It was her newspaper article. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am talking about positive matters. We now have a Bill which is a tangible ratification of the Convention, and it is worth while looking at. We are very much aware of the pressures, the strain and the obligations that come upon a Minister having the carriage of such a Bill, and our congratulations go to our Minister for her excellent work in that regard. I also congratulate the women members of the Australian Labor Party for their support. Mr MacKellar —Stop grovelling. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not need to. I am in an office where I do not need to. I think it is very important that in today's democracy in Australia we get participation of all the women in our community. It has not happened in the past . Many of us have come up through life knowing full well the problems that have bedevilled the female members of our families. Many a child has been disadvantaged because of the inability of the mother to get equal opportunity as a result of discrimination against sex. I wish to make a point which is very appropriate. The Schedule to the Convention states that the parties to the Convention are: Concerned that in situations of poverty women have the least access to food, health, education, training and opportunities for employment and other needs. That has been a sad indictment on all countries, not just Australia, which would be so much stronger and so much better equipped to look after its people and the nation if women were given their appropriate role and equal rights and opportunities. That is all it means. The more education we can give to the women in our society, the better the society is. The more opportunities they get, the stronger the society is. The Schedule to the Convention makes another thrust which reads as follows: Convinced that the full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields. If we can get to that, we will have a better world. Question put. That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald McHugh, J.Cameron, Ewen McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Moore, J. C.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanColeman, W. P. Morris, PeterConnolly, D. M. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Peacock, A. S.Dawkins, J. S. Porter, J. R.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Harry Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Ruddock, P. M.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Shipton, R. F.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Spender, J. M.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hall, Steele Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian MacKellar, M. J. R.Cowan, D. B. Millar, P. C.Drummond, P. H. Newman, K. E.Fife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D. Brown, John Dobie, J. D. M.Jones, Barry Hawker, D. P. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a short personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRUMBY —Yes, I do. The daily Hansard of 1 March records me as saying towards the end of the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983: The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) suggested that as a result of this legislation there would be less freedom in our society. In fact during that debate I referred to the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). Debate resumed from 1 March 1984, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(7.l0) —The Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill 1984 is dry stuff indeed by comparison with the kind of debate we had on the previous Bill. However, I suppose commerce must be served as well as equality and that is what we are going to do now. The Opposition supports this Bill. The purposes of the Bill, stated briefly, are to consolidate and refine existing legislation which was passed by the previous Government which protects Australian laws, policies and interests against the extraterritorial application of foreign laws and to provide certain further measures, essentially, as I understand it, measures which had been considered by the previous Government as well. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that Australia will have available a comprehensive arsenal of defences, to use the words in the explanatory memorandum, if faced with a challenge to what is described as its sovereignty or national interest by the extraterritorial application of foreign laws. Of course, the legislation is most particularly concerned with the extraterritorial application of United States of America anti-trust laws. In general terms the Bill empowers the Attorney-General to make orders or instruments having a variety of effects, which are essentially orders prohibiting the production of evidence for the purposes of a foreign tribunal- that is to say, in cases where the Attorney-General for the reasons which are permitted of him, orders that that should not be done-and to the making of an instrument blocking foreign anti-trust judgments. As well, an Australian defendant will be able to recover back either a proportion of or all money awarded in foreign anti-trust proceedings where the Attorney-General has made an appropriate order. The Attorney-General will also be able to make orders blocking other actions or decisions of foreign governments under laws relating to trade or commerce imposing an obligation upon an Australian person or company that has to be performed in Australia. He will also be able to make an order blocking judgments of a foreign court that would require or prohibit an act being done in Australia or would require a person to refrain from conduct in Australia. The reason for this legislation is essentially the very long reach of the United States anti-trust laws. In this respect two examples can be given from recent times. The first one is the Westinghouse case. The second, which I understand in fact came to nothing, is a case which was commenced in the United States courts. That case had the purpose of preventing mining operations in Western Australia that were contrary to the views put forward by the plaintiff in the American court. The Westinghouse case is the best known to Australians. Honourable members may recall that the Westinghouse Corporation took action against a number of companies, including foreign companies, in relation to certain marketing procedures involving uranium. Very high amounts were claimed by way of damages. Some of the foreign companies refused to enter an appearance in the American jurisdiction. Because of the consequences, the Australian Government took action and the Foreign Anti-trust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979 was passed. However, in the end there was a settlement agreement which was worked out in 1980 with some of the defendants. The four Australian defendants settled for a sum of $US11,270,000. That action related, as I understand it, to events outside the United States but which were judged or alleged to result in American interests, in this case the interests of Westinghouse, being affected. The other case to which I referred very briefly and which I will refer to now at slightly more length was the case brought by an organisation called the Conservation Council of Western Australia Incorporated. The case was brought in the United States District Court and the defendants were the Aluminium Company of America and Reynolds Metals. A variety of orders were sought in the United States District Court on behalf of, so it was alleged, some or all of the residents of Western Australia. It is just a little bizarre to think that such an action was brought in a United States court. The relief that was sought was, amongst other things, declaring the rights of the people of Western Australia in relation to mining and seeking certain injunctive relief. One would have thought it was perfectly preposterous that such an action should be allowed to proceed. I believe-I am not certain of this-that the action was eventually dismissed as being ill-founded. I have not seen the records so I cannot verify that. Certainly it is an example of an attempt to reach out into other jurisdictions. The view that has been taken by the previous Government and which is taken by this Government is that it is necessary to have protection against the reach of American courts. It is perfectly true that an agreement has been worked out between the Australian Government and the American Government which, as is pointed out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), sets up a framework for consultation and co-operation. One of the problems is that the best the American Government can ever do when it seeks to come to the assistance , at the request of the Australian Government, of Australian companies who find themselves defendants in American courts in respect of actions which are taking place entirely outside America is for the American Government to seek to persuade the court to come to a certain result. It is therefore in no better position than any other litigant. The Government takes the view, and I think it is a sensible view, that we need to have available to us protections of a legal kind which can be put into effect. It is pointed out in the second reading speech that one of the problems that is faced by foreign companies is that they may have become involved in speculative actions commenced in American courts. I hope that those who think speculative actions are a good thing might recall this in the future. It is in effect an invitation to lawyers to get together, find themselves clients and start some proceedings because if one sues enough big companies one just might get them coming to the table to make very large settlements rather than face continuing legal actions. Of course, the United States Government cannot control those sorts of actions. Again, that is why we need to have some legal means of preventing those actions having an effect on Australian companies when it would be contrary to the national interest and when it would be contrary to the rules of international law or international comity, although what those exceedingly vague expressions mean is another matter. The Deputy Prime Minister, in his second reading speech, said: There has been no significant change in US domestic anti-trust laws to take account of foreign government interests and no modification of their wide jurisdictional claims. Recalling that seeking to cut down the reach of these courts would be a very low priority on the part of the Administration and that the wide reach of United States anti-trust courts would have the general support, one would think, of many congressmen and certainly many American companies, the chances are fairly bleak that we will see any substantial modification of the avowed reach of American courts. That is a further reason why something needs to be done in terms of legislation. The Bill which is before the House, as with the other legislation, is radical in concept because in the case of judgments regularly procured in countries with sophisticated legal systems, such as the United States and Australia, the general rule is that if a judgment has been obtained regularly in one country it should be available to be enforced in other countries. Here we are saying that there are judgments which, for a variety of reasons, should not be enforced. There are various other steps in legal proceedings which, for a variety of reasons, we need to be in a position to stop their having an effect on Australian companies or citizens. The reason is, of course, the national interest. It is perhaps ironic that we are here seeking to limit the jurisdiction of American courts and one of these days we may find ourselves in a position of seeking to clothe Australian courts with the same long reach that American courts now have. If we do that we will be seeking to clothe Australian courts with that long reach on the grounds of national interest. But in this case the American view of national interest and the Australian view of its national interest may, as the Bill illustrates and as history illustrates, come into collision. We must, of course, make a decision which accords with our national interests. In another place Senator Durack expressed some concern about the width of some of the powers under the Bill. I well understand his concern. I do, however, observe that provision is made for parliamentary oversight of any orders or instruments which the Attorney-General may make under the Bill when it becomes an Act. Those orders or instruments are to be treated as regulations made under the relevant provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act and hence are open to this Parliament's scrutiny. This House can, if it wishes, in accordance with the provisions of sections 48, 49, 49A and 50-so far as they may apply-disallow orders or instruments by the Attorney-General made under this Bill when it becomes an Act. Therefore in summary we support the legislation and hope that in future we will be able to work out whatever problems we may experience by means of consultation with the American Government rather than having to exercise the powers under the Act when this legislation becomes an Act. But we must face up to the fact that neither the American Government nor the Australian Government can control what litigants may seek to do in the American legal system. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(7.24) —It is my pleasure, in supporting the Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill, to speak after the Parliament's most distinguished Queen's Counsel, although correspondingly the learned silk opposite might find himself with a junior he would hardly have chosen himself. However, I would like to go further and explain, in language that I think the layman and laywoman would understand, what this Bill is about. The Bill is designed to meet a challenge to the sovereignty of Australia by the extraterritorial application of foreign laws, which means it is designed to meet an attempt by foreign law making bodies and judicial bodies to impose laws having application in Australia. An Australian person, party or a company which is incorporated in Australia might do something which is entirely legal in Australia but which contravenes a foreign law which is expressed as having application in Australia. Now if that foreign law expressed as having application in Australia is then taken to court by a person in a foreign jurisdiction, the Australian people or the company might find themselves at the mercy of foreign laws. There is a problem of justice when such things happen because people are entitled to order their affairs in such a way that they do not breach the laws of the country in which they are operating and, consequently , they should not be liable to the capricious advent of foreign restrictions. There is no problem at the moment as regards the foreign application of laws in Australia and this is a very good reason for acting now. If we were to introduce legislation such as this when some case came up, such as the Westinghouse case which was referred to by the honourable and learned member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) a moment ago, we would be seen as acting in response to that and our action would exacerbate the international tension which would already exist with the case going on. There is not at the moment before Australian courts or Australian litigants any case of a foreign company or a foreign law attempting to restrict the activities of people acting within the rights which they have in Australia. This is a good reason for bringing down this legislation at this moment because we will not be adding to any antagonism that would otherwise exist. The most recent incident illustrating the necessity for legislation of this type was, as the honourable member for North Sydney mentioned, the Westinghouse case. That sort of case will not occur again once this legislation is passed. The Attorney-General will have several powers under this legislation. First of all, he will be able to prohibit the production of evidence that could be used for the purposes of a foreign court. Then he will be able to make a legal instrument which will block the effect of foreign anti-trust judgments. He will be able to prevent foreign governments in the area of trade or commerce imposing an obligation on an Australian company or person that has to be performed in Australia. If a foreign court makes a judgment that will force someone to do something or prevent someone from doing something in Australia, the Attorney- General can block it. This Bill will put Australia's relations with its trading partners on a clear basis-namely we will preserve our sovereignty and trade and deal with those people as equals in the sense that we will not attempt to do the same to them at this stage. Consequently, this announcement of Australia's insistence upon its integrity is welcome at this time. I applaud the Opposition for its support for this Bill and I commend the Bill to honourable members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(7.29) —I wish to draw the Parliament's attention to a problem that I feel very strongly about, and that is communications, or more properly phrased, the lack of communications in the far eastern corner of Victoria within my electorate-the towns of Mallacoota and Genoa. Regrettably the residents of this well-known tourist area do not receive the same benefits of the electronic media that other residents in Victoria and other Australians receive. The people pay the same taxes as every other Victorian and yet they do not receive any Victorian radio or television transmissions except on rare occasions, and then reception is very poor. Soon after this Government took office on 5 March I wrote to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and received a reply dated 22 August 1983. In that reply the Minister said: My Department has conducted field and other investigations in relation to the planned establishment of an ABC television translator for Mallacoota and present indications are that planning for this service should be finalised towards the end of 1984. Establishment of the facilities will of course need to be considered in the annual budgetary context. I urge the Minister to proceed as he has indicated so that an Australian Broadcasting Corporation television translator can be established so this vital new service can be received by the residents of Mallacoota and Genoa. There is also a problem in regard to commercial television being received by Mallacoota residents. The commercial station is GLV8 which broadcasts from Traralgon but the signal is received by some residents only as far east as Cann River. The problem is that Channel 8 has a very high frequency translator ready to be established at Cann River almost immediately but because of the recent guidelines set down by the Department of Communications, all new translators must be ultra high frequency. The UHF translator is inordinately expensive compared with the VHF translator. It may not be a commercial proposition for GLV8 to establish a UHF translator at Cann River. I urge the Minister to waive his normal requirements and permit a VHF translator to be established at Cann River; otherwise it appears unlikely that the residents of Mallacoota and Genoa will receive commercial television.As a result of being isolated in that far eastern pocket of Victoria, the residents are able to receive television only on occasions and only when there are good weather conditions. Then they receive signals from Wollongong and, occasionally, from the ABC in Canberra. I also understand that a radio signal can be received, again only on rare occasions, from Tasmania. Certainly nothing is received from Victoria. This is an intolerable situation. It is a matter of tremendous frustration to the residents of that part of Victoria. I have received numerous representations from such people as Eric Fuller, representing the Returned Services League sub-branch; Frank Hownslow, representing the Mallacoota Chamber of Commerce and concerned individuals such as Jack and Gwen Radley. The Cann River area is unable to receive Channel 8 or the ABC. Mr Jim Armstrong has done a tremendous amount of work in bringing this to the attention of the Minister. For many years now the residents of Mallacoota and Genoa have been promised a translator. It is time this Government fulfilled this promise. Nothing has come of the previous promise. I urge the Minister and the Government to provide communications to this very important tourist resort area. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(7.34) —I wish to congratulate tonight the New South Wales Government for its decisions to allocate money for the construction of the East Hills to Campbelltown railway line and to say how pleased the State member for East Hills, Mr Pat Rogan, and I are with the decision. In September last year the Premier, Mr Wran, announced the approval for the $35m project which will involve the extension of the East Hills line eight kilometres over Commonwealth land at Holsworthy to join the main southern line just north of Glenfield. A dual connection will enable trains to travel directly either to or from both Campbelltown and Liverpool. The line will be double-track and electrified. As an adjunct to this extension, the State Government has also commenced work on the full duplication of the 6.5 kilometres between Riverwood and East Hills in my electorate at an estimated cost of $10m. The benefits of the proposal are many. It will be an important and strategic link between the developing south- western suburbs of Sydney and other parts of Sydney. This region is recognised as one of the fastest growing areas in Australia. It is an area from which many people must travel enormous distances to get to their work. This rail link will help to alleviate that difficulty. It will enable about 15 to 20 minutes to be cut off the travel times for Campbelltown commuters to Sydney. However, of greater significance, the link will open up employment opportunities of the western part of my electorate to the people in the south- west. Previously this considerable industrial sector was out of the reach of those south-westerners without private transport. The connections required for people living in Liverpool and Campbelltown made employment in the area impracticable. This extension, together with the duplication of the track between Riverwood and East Hills, will also improve the rail service for people living at Padstow, Revesby, Panania and Milperra. The single track often meant that many trains terminated at Riverwood. Of course, this section was heavily affected by any signal failure or fault occurring in the system. Likewise, this line will assist residents of Menai, Bangor and Illawong for whom the East Hills railway line represents the closest means of public transport to the city. Honourable members may not appreciate the significance of the Wran Government's decision to allocate funds for this project if they are unaware of the background to this issue. The Wran Government has addressed itself to a festering problem created many years ago by bad planning by an uncaring conservative government. In 1972 planning authorities indicated that the growth of the satellite city of Campbelltown would necessitate the expansion of the transport system. Discussions were held with the Whitlam Labor Government during this period and an agreement was reached for the Commonwealth to provide two- thirds of the cost of extending the rail link from East Hills to Glenfield. The project was approved as part of the 1974-75 urban public transport improvement program. Plans were drawn up and an environmental impact statement was completed. My predecessor, Mr Vince Martin, and the local State member, Mr Pat Rogan, organised one of the largest public meetings held in East Hills. This meeting was instrumental in the alteration of the proposal so that the line went through part of the local shopping centre at East Hills rather than through a number of residential housing developments. Today's proposal maintains this concept. However, it is history that the work did not proceed due mainly, I suggest, to the former State Liberal-Country Party Government and its mismanagement of the transport system generally and because of serious difficulties with the Eastern Suburbs railway in particular. As honourable members can see, this line has been a long time in coming. Since the announcement of the decision in September 1983, planning has progressed rapidly. The State Rail Authority and Commonwealth representatives have reached agreement on the alignment of the line. An environmental impact statement has been prepared and exhibited at East Hills and throughout the Bankstown area. Discussions with appropriate councils and relevant property owners have also been undertaken. On the Riverwood to East Hills duplication the Authority has already commenced earthworks and design work for the Salt Pan Creek Bridge crossing. So that no delay to the commencement of the extension occurs, I appeal to my Government Ministers to sign immediately the formal agreement with the Commonwealth Government for the transfer to the State of the necessary land for the transport corridor. This agreement involves not only the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Defence but also the Department of Housing and Construction. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.39) —The gross impropriety and lack of integrity of the Government in the Hawkegate tapes scandal are now exposed for all to see. We have a Prime Minister who deliberately chooses not to listen to the tapes and not to read the transcripts. We have two governments, the Hawke socialist Government and the Wran socialist Government, piously calling on us, the Opposition, to put up or shut up. What hyprocrisy, what dereliction of duty, what shameless and fraudulent duplicity are exposed when one realises that these two governments between them have all the tapes and all the transcripts in their possession right now. Tonight I am going to report to this House on the results of my investigations. I have not heard the tapes, I have not read the transcripts and nor has any person who has been put in possession of the transcripts by the Government disclosed their contents to me. Over the past few days I have returned to my first profession as a barrister, having been admitted to the Bar back in 1962. I have investigated, and investigated assiduously, and I now-no doubt to the dismay of those sitting opposite-reveal my findings to this House. Firstly, I have no doubt at all that the tapes and transcripts disclose a prima facie case in support of the allegation that there was an attempt by a judicial person to interfere in the administration of justice in proceedings not in his jurisdiction. If it is correct that a judicial person counselled a defendant on ways and means of improving his position when he came to trial so that he would 'smell like a rose', would anybody with any knowledge of the law argue that such action did not constitute misbehaviour? Mr Maher —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I draw your attention to standing order 75, which says: No member may use offensive words against . . . any member of the Judiciary. The honourable member for Denison has said that in his opinion there is a prima facie case, which is a very serious allegation to lay against a judge. I ask you to rule him out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order as no specific member of the judiciary has been named. However, I take the opportunity-I hope the honourable member for Denison does not take it personally-to say that I trust there will not be general talk of the judiciary with a name dropped at the end as has happened previously. I would then be forced to take action. Mr HODGMAN —Secondly, I have no doubt at all that the tapes and transcripts disclose a prima facie case in support of the allegation that a Mr John Yuen claimed to Mr Morgan Ryan that he, Yuen, had paid the sum of $50,000 to a senior New South Wales public servant in consideration of being granted a casino licence in the event of casinos being legalised in New South Wales. The evidence confirms that Mr Yuen was told that the Wran political scenario had now changed and that he 'had done his money cold'. Thirdly, I have no doubt at all that the tapes and transcripts disclose a prima facie case in support of the allegation that a judicial person was at least approached by Mr Morgan Ryan to intervene personally with the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, in respect of a forthcoming Public Service appointment of some significance. If the judiciary intermingles with the political Executive in relation to an appointment of persons to important offices-paid for out of the public purse-will anyone contend that such conduct would not constitute misbehaviour? Fourthly, I have no doubt at all that the tapes and transcripts disclose a prima facie case in support of the allegation that a direct and deliberate attempt was made to blackmail an officer of the New South Wales Parliament by threatening that officer with possible public exposure of alleged impropriety by one of his colleagues. Add to that attempts to wrongfully procure proceedings for malicious prosecution, reference to the Premier himself and a bookmaker, and who in this Parliament will say that there is not something rotten in the State of New South Wales. The Hawke socialist Government is now locked in as an accessory to a conspiracy to cover up-at least until 24 March. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government have failed in their solemn duty to the people of Australia to stamp our corruption whenever and wherever they find it, and particularly when it is so close to home. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(7.43) —I was not going to speak in the adjournment debate tonight, but I will now that one of the most objectionable members of this House has just spoken. We all know his background and I will not concentrate on that. I appeal to honourable members-especially the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), who has always struck me as a reasonable person, as has to a certain extent the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron)-to listen to the proposition I will put. Do they, and the House in general, believe that it ought to be possible for me to record a phone conversation between myself and any other person in which I state-this is allegedly what happened in this case-that a third person had told me that he bribed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Somebody could then provide that transcript to the Age or the National Times, and it could then be used as prima facie evidence, as the fine lawyer from Hobart puts it, against the Leader of the Opposition. If we then refer to the Leader of the Opposition not as the Leader of the Opposition but in some other very simplistic fashion, anybody, even the normal National Times readers, would think that he was terribly clever and in the end, in as far as inside political knowledge was concerned. We could refer to him as the sunlamp kid or in some such way. The National Times would be only too happy to print that sort of allegation. That is all that has happened here. There is a proposition that a lawyer who was named again tonight, Morgan Ryan, allegedly said on the telephone to somebody else that a third person had told him that he had attempted to bribe, unsuccessfully, a fourth person. We have the proposition from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) that somehow that is a prima facie case. Surely it is not a prima facie case. I can say anything on the telephone. If I ring any other person I can say that Mr X told me that he bribed Mr Y. Are we really reaching the stage where that is considered to be prima facie evidence? I despair at what the Opposition is putting forward. There is no evidence whatever ; it is not even hearsay evidence. There is no evidence on which that person can be cross-examined. Anybody can make up any sort of story. Mr Cunningham —And tape it. Dr KLUGMAN —And tape it themselves. Because it is said on the telephone it suddenly attains some sort of holiness. I think I can remember the honourable member for Moreton joining me in very strong attacks on some of the propositions put during debate on allowing phone tapping in certain issues. I was shadow Minister who had responsibility for Customs, when the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) was the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The proposition first raised was that the police could tap a solicitor's phone if he were suspected of having clients involved in illegal drug dealings. It was put that any of his phone calls could be tapped, not only his phone calls with that particular client-I had some reservations even on that-but also any of his other conversations could be tapped provided that that solicitor had defended anybody involved in a drug case. The House overruled my proposition and took the position that the police ought to be entitled to do that. Now we have come to a position where there is no evidence whatever. The honourable member for Denison has put up the proposition that there is prima facie evidence. He referred to it as prima facie evidence on a number of occasions. We then have Don Lane, the Minister for Transport in Queensland who is known as having been a crooked cop for many years, who would sell his mother for a quid and who later sold his Party for the trappings of office. Mr Leo McLeay —A spiv of the first order. Dr KLUGMAN —Yes, he is a spiv of the first order, and a crook, known to everybody around the place as having been a crooked cop and having to resign from the police force because of his reputation. The next thing that happens is that he is now considered to be a person who can suggest that respectable people in other States be brought to trial. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(7.49) —I wish to inform the House of certain action of mine and of certain correspondence and concerns which have resulted from that action. In doing so, I hope to put to rest concerns and allegations that have been circulating and which are now within the knowledge of several members of this House. The matter concerns me, the Expenditure Committee, of which I am Deputy Chairman, and the Aboriginal Development Commission, of which Mr Charles Perkins is Chairman. In December last year, the Expenditure Committee determined that it would consider conducting an inquiry into the Aboriginal Development Commission. The Committee secretariat proceeded to prepare a brief for the Committee outlining the lines such an inquiry might take. I emphasise that this is normal Committee procedure and that over the seven-year life of the Committee a number of statutory authorities have been examined under the terms of reference given to the Committee by this House. During January I was approached by a journalist from the Australian who informed me he was aware of allegations about certain activities of the ADC and asked if the proposed expenditure committee inquiry would be investigating them. I told the journalist that the Committee would be concerned about the financial, managerial and accountability aspects of the ADC not with social questions affecting Aboriginals. I told him that if matters were raised in submissions and they were within the Committee's area of interest we would look at them. I told him that the Committee would be concerned to ensure that an appropriation of $ 50m which was not subject to direct Ministerial control and which was being administered by the ADC as a statutory authority was being administered properly . In the newspaper article that followed the interview on 2 February, I was quoted as saying: 'I am interested in the buying of the Hotel and the Leagues Club. It is a question of whether it is being done properly.' The article said, but not in quotation, that Mr Lusher said: The investigations were expected to include the purchase by the Commission of a hotel in the New South Wales town of Walgett and the possible purchase of Sydney 's Newtown Leagues Club, the Commission's takeover of Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd and the general accountability of the Commission, which has an annual budget of about $50m. The article said later, again not in quotation: Mr Lusher said he was concerned the Government had lost control of a large slice of money. That is the situation concerning the report in the Australian. I think the House will understand and appreciate the difference in emphasis between what I said to the journalist and what appeared in the article. It may well be that this difference in emphasis has been responsible for the concerns which have since been expressed. On 8 February, the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) received a telex from Mr Perkins, and a copy was sent to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). In the telex, Mr Perkins formally protested about me publicly condemning the ADC for political purposes without following proper procedures. The Chairman of the Committee was asked to reprimand me for my inappropriate outburst which could lead to the Committee being seen as a kangaroo court by Aboriginal people. The honourable member for Grayndler responded by telex on 10 February and rejected Mr Perkins's claims. Mr Perkins wrote to the honourable member for Grayndler on the same day, 10 February and said: You can be rest assured of the co-operation of the Commission and officers of the Commission in regard to this inquiry and in fact we believe the time is appropriate for the inquiry. The Expenditure Committee has continued, in the normal course, to proceed with the inquiry. It has now come to my notice that on 3 February Mr Perkins telexed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair ), again with copies to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. In these telexes, Mr Perkins formally protested at the inappropriate and unethical manner in which I had publicly condemned some ADC activities. Mr Perkins asked that I be reprimanded and removed from the Committee. Although I was not aware of the telexes to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party until last week, I acknowledge that those telexes are superseded by Mr Perkin's letter to the honourable member for Grayndler on 10 February. It has come to my notice that there are members of this House who are of the opinion that my interest and the interest of the Expenditure Committee is in having a witch-hunt. It has been suggested that my interest is politically and racially motivated. There are claims that my interest is simply to stir up trouble between the Aboriginal and white communities in Australia. I believe it is necessary for me to put my position on the record before the inquiry gets under way in a public sense in case these concerns and allegations are raised again when the public hearings commence. I wish to make it clear that, for my part, I have no political or racial motivation in relation to this inquiry; nor, in my view, has the sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee which I have the honour to chair; nor has the Expenditure Committee itself. I want it clear from the outset that the inquiry into the ADC is a normal inquiry and will be carried out according to the well established guidelines which have been developed by the Expenditure Committee. It will focus on the financial administration, the efficiency and effectiveness of the program and the accountability to the Parliament of the ADC as a statutory authority expending considerable public funds. I only add that I have known Mr Perkins for 10 years and he knows that I have no ill feeling towards him or towards the ADC. He knows I have no racist views or any desire to cause difficulties for the Aboriginal people of Australia. I accept his undertaking that the Expenditure Committee will have the co- operation of the ADC in its inquiry and trust that the inquiry will result in the more effective delivery of services to the Aboriginal people of Australia. I have the support of the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee in making this statement. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(7.54) —Last Saturday was a very important day for the city of Penrith in my electorate. On that day the Minister for Social Security, Senator Don Grimes, officially opened two new child care centres, the first was the Werrianda Centre, serving the community of Werrington Downs, and the second was The Kids' Place at Emu Plains. Each centre was completed at a capital cost of $138,000 which was provided by the Federal Office of Child Care and constructed under an arrangement with the Housing Commission of New South Wales. I want to record my appreciation and that of my constituents to the Minister and all associated in these projects. Each centre operates as a multi-purpose, 40 place centre, and offers long day, short day and sessional care for children up to five years old between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. The authority for running the centres has been delegated to community-based management committees. I want to acknowledge that the crucial role in the development of these projects has been the co-operation of all levels of government and local communities. The Federal Government, the New South Wales Government and local councils have worked together harmoniously and productively both at the departmental level and the political level. I pay tribute to my State colleagues in my Federal division-Mr Ron Mulock, Mr Peter Anderson and Mr Bob Debus. Those fine representatives recognised the need for much to be done in the provision of child care in that district. They attacked the task with their customary energy and enthusiasm, as has, indeed, every Federal Labor representative in western Sydney. Much as I would like to be charitable, and I really would, I regret that I cannot say the same of some of the few remaining members of the Liberal Party in western Sydney. The best that can be said of them is that their presence in the region is irrelevant, just as their presence here is irrelevant and just as the presence in the New South Wales Parliament is irrelevant. The importance of a co-operative approach between the Federal and State governments in identifying areas of need, the planning of new centres and applying needs based funding was recognised in a recent editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 27 February. The first part of the article, which is entitled 'A breakthrough in child-care', deals with a rather gloomy past. It states: For decades, child-care services in Australia have not been cared for. It is a moot point whether this reflects a negligent culture or just a cumbersome system of government . . . It was not that the problem did not exist: it merely did not force itself on the bureaucracy. Later in the editorial the writer goes on to detail the great advances that have been made in New South Wales and states: NSW spending on child-care is at record levels. Forty-four new centres will be running by the end of this financial year, as a result of an agreement between the Minister for Youth and Community Services, Mr Walker, and the Federal Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. The ''new estate centres'' have a standard design, and are multi-purpose, catering for day-long or part-time care. They are placed in areas of need, especially western and southern Sydney. The Land Commission provides land, the Housing Commission builds the centres, and local councils provide landscaping, drainage and other essentials. Recurrent costs . . . are paid by the Commonwealth. In the past, funds were often unspent because local groups faced immense bureaucratic tasks in acquiring land, a building, a development application, staff, and so on. The NSW model does not exhaust the options: work-based and work-related centres are badly needed, and there is a good case for subsidising or otherwise encouraging private enterprise centres. Mr Walker and his officials, however, appear to have made a decisive breakthrough in inter-government co-ordination. It is even possible that the NSW model will yet become the national model. My concern is that this 'decisive breakthrough' is at risk. My concern is that the families which have young children in western Sydney stand to lose so much should the Government of New South Wales change on 24 March. On the one hand, we have the Wran Government's commitment to co-operation and to needs-based funding and, on the other hand, we have a policy vacuum in the Liberal Party in New South Wales, a lack of interest in the needs of ordinary families. Mr Cadman —It has the worst record in the Commonwealth. It has a dreadful record and it ought to be ashamed of that record. Mr FREE —For the benefit of people like the honourable member for Mitchell, the New South Wales Liberals are unable to climb out of the gutter long enough to look at the needs of ordinary people. I am confident that the people of New South Wales will recognise that in child care, as in so many other areas, the Wran Government is building a better New South Wales. I am confident that they will vote accordingly on 24 March. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(7.59) —In the minute remaining to me I want to make the first complaint under the Sex Discrimination Bill on behalf of one of my constituents. My constituent wrote to me informing me that for the last seven years he has resided with a woman in a de facto relationship and for six of those seven years the Australian Taxation Office gave him the appropriate spouse rebate, but for the year ending 30 June 1983 that rebate was refused. The lady has now just turned 60 years. Inquiries of the Department of Social Security indicate that it regards those people as a married couple, and therefore, the man's income is taken into account in determining the woman's pension which will be nil. In the few seconds that remain to me, I will try to say that the Government cannot have it two ways. It cannot refuse to pay this woman a pension and at the same time treat those people as unmarried for those purposes. This is the first complaint under the Government's Sex Discrimination Bill. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following answer to question was circulated: Question No. 337 Mr Spender asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Was the annual report of Trans Australia Airlines for the year ended 30 June 1982 not furnished to the Minister until after 26 April 1983; if not, why not. (2) Has he taken any action to ensure that the financial report for 1982-83 of TAA will be furnished to him as soon as practicable after the close of the 1982- 83 financial year; if so, what action has been taken. (3) If he has not taken such action, will he undertake to do so. (4) Will he ensure that in future TAA publicly discloses, as soon as practicable after the close of each quarter, a statement of its financial results for that quarter. (5) Were any losses for the Hertz car rental operations suffered by TAA in each financial year; if so, what are the accumulated figures. (6) Is he able to say whether the management of TAA forecasts that its interest in the Hertz car rental operation is to become profitable; if so, when is it forecasted. (7) If losses were sustained by TAA in the Hertz car rental operation, can he say what are management reasons for retaining this investment. (8) In tendering for either private or government contract business (a) has Hertz adopted a pricing policy; and if so, over what period or periods, or (b) does it now adopt a pricing policy by which it provides services below cost; if so, why. (9) Is TAA seeking to dispose of any of the five Airbuses which it has acquired or contracted to acquire; if so (a) how many, (b) what are the reasons and (c) what losses does it expect to incur. (10) With respect to page 7 of the 1981-82 annual report of TAA, what was the associated company in which investments were written down by $3,225,000 and what were the reasons for the write down. (11) With reference to the auditor's statement in the 1981-82 annual report of TAA (page 34), is it a fact that (a) the expenses are a charge against revenue for the year in which they fall due for payment, (b) the net loss for the year has been understated by $6.192m, and (c) the book value of the aircraft and thus the equity of the Commonwealth Government as at 30 June 1982 is overstated by $ 23.977m. (12) Will he ensure that for the 1982-83 financial year the accounts of TAA are prepared so as to accord with the criticisms made by the Auditor; if not, what are his reasons. (13) What were the unaudited consolidated operating results of TAA for the (a) three months ended 30 September 1982, (b) six months ended 31 December 1982, (c) nine months ended 31 March 1983 and (d) twelve months ended 30 June 1983. (14) For the purposes of minimising losses, has TAA instituted cost cutting measures during (a) 1981-82 and (b) 1982-83; if so, (i) what are those measures, (ii) when were they introduced and (iii) what savings are projected to be made from them. (15) If TAA has not introduced such cost cutting measures, what are its reasons . (16) With respect to the Government's decision to inject $115m of capital funds into TAA: (a) did management decisions in TAA contribute to the need for the injection of those funds; if so, what were those decisions, (b) before deciding to inject $115m, did the Government call for forecasts of future profitability and cash flow statements from TAA, (i) if so, what did such forecasts or cash flow statements show, (ii) if not, (c) before the Government decided to inject $ 115m of capital funds into TAA, was it given any information on or assurances concerning the effect that that capital injection of funds would have on air fares to be charged in the future by TAA, and if so, what information or assurances were given to the Government and (d) what return on the capital investment of $115m in TAA does the Government expect to receive in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86. (17) With respect to the decision to inject $115m of capital funds into TAA, and to his statement of 3 May 1983 relating to the capital funding of TAA, (a) what are the initiatives and (b) when are they to be taken. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I understand that TAA did not receive approval from the previous Government to the form of accounts until March 1983, which prevented finalisation of the accounts prior to 26 April 1983. (2) and (3) I tabled TAA's 1982-83 annual report in Parliament on 8 December 1983. (4) There is no provision under the Australian National Airlines Act which could be used to require TAA to publish quarterly financial statements. This is therefore a matter for the Commission to decide. (5) Yes. TAA has advised that its share of accumulated losses suffered in relation to Hertz Rent-a-Car operations was $5.628m, up to 30 June 1982. (6) and (7) During 1982-83, Mayne Nickless Ltd took over the management of Hertz Rent-a-Car by agreement with TAA, assuming responsibility for financing, operating results and capital costs for the period from 1 January 1983 to 30 June 1986. TAA has advised that this agreement expires on 30 June 1986, and TAA will again review its continued participation in Hertz Rent-a-Car prior to that date, based on considerations such as the prospects for future profitability. (8) Hertz' tendering procedures or pricing policies are matters for the commercial judgement of Hertz management. (9) (a), (b) and (c) Due to the severe downturn in airline traffic, TAA is seeking to sell or lease two A300 aircraft which are surplus to current requirements. (10) The company in question is TAA-Mayne Travel Industries Pty Ltd. TAA has advised that the write down was deemed necessary in view of TAA's share of losses incurred by this company including losses by its subsidiary Hertz Rent-a- Car. After finalising its 1981-82 report, TAA entered into a management agreement with Mayne Nickless whereby Hertz was removed from the TAA-Mayne Travel Industries group and is now operated as a separate associated company through Kay Investments Pty Ltd. (11) Yes, if one accepts the view of the Auditor-General on the accounting treatment for interest payable on monies borrowed to purchase aircraft. (12) No. In contrast with the Auditor-General's view, TAA has taken the view that interest on aircraft borrowings is a capital item and should be spread over the useful life of the aircraft and not necessarily written off in the year the interest expense is incurred. It has adopted this approach for a period of 25 years. There is a legitimate difference of opinion between TAA and the Auditor- General on the accounting treatment for interest on monies borrowed to purchase aircraft. (13) See answer to question 4. (14) TAA adopted a number of cost cutting measures during 1981-82 and 1982-83. TAA has advised that the major items were a large reduction in staff numbers through voluntary retrenchment and early retirement programs, the application of strict control on aircraft scheduling, and an almost total freeze expenditure commencements. Other diverse measures flowing from a total review of expenditure levels included the elimination of coach transport and city check-in, the centralisation of certain administrative functions, an energy management program , and further improvements in control of funds management. TAA has advised that, due to these programs, costs are now running at some $42m below levels that would otherwise have been the case. (15) See answer to (14) above. (16) (a) and (b) It is incorrect to state that it was this Government's decision to inject $115m capital funds into TAA. The previous Government made an interim capital injection of $25m in December 1982, and was to review the position by March 1983. The information available to this Government indicated that TAA was seriously under capitalised and had been for a number of years. Despite having consistently produced profitable results, TAA had not been allowed use of the profits for expansion and purchase of new capital equipment. This had forced TAA to borrow heavily. Prior to taking a decision on additional capital, the Government was provided with forecasts of both future cash flow and future profitability by TAA. The details of these forecasts are commercially confidential to TAA. The Government provided a further capital injection in May 1983 to $90m. The capital injection was to place TAA on a more sound commercial footing. The Government realised that TAA could not be expected to operate on a normal commercial basis with inadequate capital funding. (c) The additional capital funding of $90m provided by this Government was used by TAA primarily to restructure its debt and allow borrowings to be reduced. It was an essential measure designed to make the airline more competitive, to reduce costs and help keep air fares down. (d) The ANA Act provides that the Commission shall pay to the Commonwealth, out of the profits of the Commission for a financial year, such amount as the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance determines. Given the uncertainties about level of future profits, and the currently depressed state of the domestic aviation market, it would not be appropriate to estimate future dividends. (17) The capital injected, together with self help measures taken by TAA, has allowed TAA to contain cost increases, and minimise air fare increases. Currently the domestic aviation industry is rather depressed, which limits the scope for new initiatives. Nevertheless, TAA, together with Ansett, introduced 45 per cent discount fares, subject to certain conditions aimed at preventing revenue dilution, on many routes in June last year.