Thursday, 8 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: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing 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 Representaives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cross,Mr Hawker,Mr Lusher,Mr Porter,Mr Reeves and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Keating,Mr Lusher and Mr Ruddock. 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 Carlton and Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, as members of a school parent Club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of Bank Debit Tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of Bank Debit Tax will be granted to School Parents' Clubs in government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil and Mr Porter. 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 as 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, though 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 its 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 programmes 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 programmes 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the handing over of the Uluru National Park to exclusive Aboriginal control is discriminatory to other Australian Citizens. 2. That the Uluru National Park monoliths (i.e. Ayers Rock and the Olga Mountains) are natural phenomena of Australia, and therefore belong to all Australian Citizens irrespective or race, colour or creed. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will reject any proposal to hand over control of the Uluru National Park to any one group of Australian Citizens. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests that legislation be enacted to permit the biological control of the weed known as 'patersons curse'. The Petitioners wish to express their most serious concern regarding the recent spread of this weed and the resultant loss in primary production. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the electorate of Farrer respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Hume respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectully 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. We, the undersigned, residents of Australia and/or victims of the Hanoi Communist regime, respectfully submit this petition to the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Commonwealth, considering that: (i) The current Hanoi communist Government is the most repressive ruler in the history of Vietnam. Eight years after the so-called 'liberation' of South Vietnam by force, the Hanoi ruling clique still imprisons several hundred thousand innocent people without charges in those so-called 're-education camps' . (ii) Hanoi is still following a policy of aggression with 180 thousand troops in Kampuchea and 60 thousand troops in Laos in defiance of the world's opinion. (iii) Aid of any kinds at this stage are only used by Hanoi to further its repressive and aggressive policies. (iv) Hanoi has repeatedly rejected all reasonable efforts by the U.N. and other well-meaning governments in the world, aiming at achieving a just settlement of the Kampuchean problem. (v) Any visits to Australia by Hanoi officials will have an unsettling effect on the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees in Australia. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Government of Commonwealth of Australia (i) ceases forthwith all form of aid to Hanoi Government, including those ' cultural and educational' ties and exchanges. The Vietnamese people are not allowed to derive any benefits from these forms of assistance. On the contrary, Hanoi is using the fact that it is receiving them as a sign of approval of its policies. With their peace and freedom loving traditions, the Australian people should not be seen-through their Government-as Hanoi's supporters. (ii) demands the release of prisoners of conscience and innocent people who are still incarcerated in Hanoi's prisons. (iii) supports U.N. efforts aimed at achieving a just solution on the Kampuchean problem. This problem can only be solved if Hanoi is forced to withdraw its forces from Kampuchea and lets the Kampuchean people have the right of self-determination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia in the Division of Ryan, residing in Sinnamon Retirement Village, 620 Seventeen Mile Rocks Road, Seventeen Mile Rocks, Qld. 4073, respectfully showeth that: As a result of Legislation on 1st November, 1983, relative to Item 46 of the list of Schedule Fees, the Doctor who operates a private Surgery within the Village complex can only charge a Nursing Home Fee of $7.75 instead of his Pensioner rate of $9.90. As this represents a considerable loss of income he has to seriously look at whether he can continue his service here as he pays rent and employs a receptionist. His rooms are regarded as a private Surgery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the said Surgery be regarded as a private Surgery and that Doctor be permitted to charge the normal Pensioner consultation fee. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action 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 disdvantage 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 personalized service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that those of the Honourable House will call on the Government to halt the closure pending a full and open inquiry into needs and desires of affected subcribers 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 petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983/84 over 1982/83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983/84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The Humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show. Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50% 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 Mrs Darling. 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. The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament Assembled: The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which 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 Lusher. Petitions received. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House censures the Government for- (1) Its cover-up and its failure to hold an open, impartial and independent inquiry into the material related to the Federal Judge named in the transcripts of the New South Wales corruption tapes; (2) its failure to bring before the Parliament the material necessary for Parliament to determine its responsibility under section 72 (ii) of the Constitution in relation to the Federal Judge named in the transcripts of the New South Wales corruption tapes; (3) its failure to ask the Chief Justice of the High Court to ask the Federal Judge named in the transcripts of the New South Wales corruption tapes to stand aside while these inquiries are carried out; (4) its condoning of a clear and indefensible conflict of interest by the Attorney-General in his handling of the matter; (5) its support of the action of the Wran Government in rushing to the polls before the Jackson Inquiry has been completed; and (6) its blatant political conspiracy in attempting to conceal the magnitude of the issues involved and shield prominent members, former members and associates of the Labor Party from examination for complicity in corruption and misconduct. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —It will be the desire of the Government to facilitate debate on this matter at 2 p.m. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In the 18 years I have been here a censure motion has never been put off like this. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that people in the electorate at large, but in particular in the electorate of Stirling, are concerned about, and wish to contribute to the debate on issues such as business profitability, taxation, interest rates, housing, employment, economic growth, industrial relations, and Medicare; (2) commends the Government for its good performance in these areas in its first year of Government; (3) regrets that the Opposition has failed to discuss or debate these matters so far during the Autumn sittings of Parliament. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) agrees with the view expressed by the first Commonwealth Attorney-General, Alfred Deakin, that the High Court is the keystone of the Federal arch; (2) notes that the Australian Federation is constituted by a distribution of powers and it is the High Court which carries the grave and sensitive responsibility of deciding the orbit and boundary of every power, and (3) therefore is of the view that the integrity and honour of the High Court must be beyond question so that the people of all the States of Australia including the smaller States like Tasmania can have absolute confidence in its decisions. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) commends the Government on its commitment to women over the past 12 months, in an endeavour to redress some of the disadvantages women have suffered in the past, by introducing- (a) job creation schemes and equal opportunity in employment; (b) changes to education curricula; (c) reforms in the Australian Public Service; (d) establishment of a National Women's Emergency Service; (e) the upgrading of the Status of Women's Office and the Shopfront Information Service; (f) task forces to reach particular groups of women, such as Aboriginal, migrant, disabled and aged women; (g) funds for consultation, research and information programs on the status of women; (h) increased benefits for families, and (i) sex discrimination legislation, and (2) Congratulates the Government for supporting the spirit of International Women's Day. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the failure of the Minister for Health to take action to stop the anguish of patients with mental illness who are being forced to pay $36 per day for private psychiatric hospital treatment under the new Medicare arrangements; (2) notes that in NSW alone some 12,000 patients per year are being treated by these hospitals, and (3) calls on the Minister for Health to act immediately to reclassify these hospitals at Level 2 so that this cruelty can be brought to an end. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government for its appointment of Sister Denise Demarschelier and Professor Ronald Sackville to the Commonwealth Schools Commission; (2) thanks Sister Mary Reardon, Executive Secretary of the National Catholic Education Commission, for her letter of support dated 2 March 1984, and (3) notes that in her letter Sister Reardon assures that the National Catholic Education Commission will continue to be involved in productive dialogue with the Government in order to further the educational interests of all Australian children. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its deep concern that on 1 February 1984 the Government dismantled what was, in all probability, the best and most cost-efficient health care system of any nation in the world, and (2) is of the opinion that the cost of Medicare will blow out like its socialist predecessor, Medibank, and that the people of Australia will have to pay millions of dollars to fund the Government's socialist policy on health care . Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the weekly newspapers, the Canning-Melville Times , the Comet News and the Southern Gazette for the valuable contribution they make to the dissemination of local news to the residents within the Electoral Division of Tangney. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Government has not fulfilled its election promise to implement a small business action program; and (2) calls on the Government to recognise by action the particular needs and problems facing small businesses in Australia. Mr JACOBI(Hawker) —I give notice, that on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) recognises the costs to the community arising out of the lack of uniformity in laws throughout Australia providing for the manufacture, packaging, labelling and marketing of food products; (2) notes the failure of the States to legislate in the terms of the Model Food Act endorsed at the Health Ministers' Conference as long ago as May 1980; and (3) calls on the Government to exercise its undoubted constitutional powers and introduce legislation to remedy this state of affairs. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice, that on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) calls on the Government to hasten its consideration of the airport needs of Sydney; (2) condemns the Government for creating havoc amongst home owners and primary producers, and- (a) causing psychological stress for a wide section of Sydney residents; (b) lacking clarity in its intention for the future of aviation, and (c) playing political favourites with a crucial economic service, and (3) recommends that the Government seek as a matter of urgency, alterations to the MANS Committee recommendations to allow the consideration of unpopulated sites and so stop the interference in the lives of thousands of residents in the northwestern section of Sydney. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises that the Illawarra Members of the New South Wales State Parliament have worked untiringly for the betterment of that area; (2) further recognises that since the Federal Labor Government gained office, the special plight of the Illawarra has been acknowledged, especially through the Steel Cities Assistance plan; and (3) looks forward to a continuing close working relationship between the Federal and State Labor Governments after 24 March 1984 for the continuing improvement of the Illawarra area. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the electorate of Richmond has only 3 Medicare offices and that these are required to service a population of approximately 150,000; (b) residents of other towns in the electorate are required to travel extensive distances or rely on mail to transact their business with Medicare; and (c) prior to the introduction of Medicare the private funds provided a claim service in many of these towns; and (2) calls upon the Minister for Health to live up to the statement he made on 28 February 1984 and provide a standard of service to country people at least equivalent to that which was provided by the private funds prior to the introduction of Medicare. Mr HAND(Melbourne) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move , and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) will second: That this House- (1) condemns the honourable member for Denison and the Victorian President of the RSL for their racist statements on immigration, and (2) is of the opinion that- (a) statements of that type are designed to divide the Australian community, and (b) the Leader of the Opposition should replace the honourable member for Denison as shadow spokesperson for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs with a person free of racial prejudice, in order that those statements from the Opposition will cease. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) supports the appointment of Mr Justice Everett as President of the Interstate Commission, and (2) expresses confidence in Mr Justice Everett to undertake the difficult task that now confronts him. Mr GORMAN(Chifley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) condemns the leaders and most of the Members of the Opposition for their recent disgraceful attacks on the Premier of NSW, many prominent Members of the NSW Parliament and High Court judges, and (2) commends the NSW Premier and his Government for going to the people of NSW for their support and determination. Mr Peacock-The Opposition would be prepared to facilitate debate on that motion . Would the Government like to take it now? Mr Young-We will incorporate it at 2 o'clock. Mr Peacock-You are running away again. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Unless the Leader of the Opposition is raising a point of order I ask him to resume his seat. I have allowed him indulgence. Mr Peacock-If the Government wishes to use the Standing Orders to have the matter taken now, and incorporate it in our motion, I am not worried. What I am interested in is that the Government will not take it now. It is not supporting its own member. Mr SPEAKER —Is the Leader moving now or is he just using that as a ploy? Mr Peacock-I am just foreshadowing it. Notice of Motion Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister for failing to vote in favour of the Sex Discrimination Bill. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the former Fraser Government's health mismanagement resulted in thousands of Australians being unable to afford health cover, and (2) commends the present Government for ensuring that no Australian need go without medical care. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for- (1) not immediately debating the motion of which the Leader of the Opposition gave notice on the morning of 8 March 1984 and therefore not immediately defending the integrity of the federal judge named in the NSW Police 'corruption' tapes, and (2) wishing to avoid questions without notice on the eve of the NSW state elections. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the uncertainty in respect of the outcome of discussions with leaders in Japan, South Korea and China regarding Australian exports of beef and steel; and (2) calls upon the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House to clarify the outcome of his discussion. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) — I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Health for his callous disregard of the plight of Victoria's bush nursing hospitals; (2) calls on the Government to re-categorize bush nursing hospitals so as to ensure their survival; and (3) condemns the Government for yet another attack on the well-being of Australia's rural community. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move : That this House- (1) expresses its dismay at the Government's proposed introduction of a levy for taxis at Commonwealth airports; (2) reminds the Government of its pre-election promise to reduce taxes, promote the tourist industry and assist small businesses; and (3) calls on the Government to abandon its proposals for the introduction of this new tax. [COGNATE BILL: SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate on both measures? As there is no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.23) —The Satellite Communications Bill 1984 and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984, to which the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has just referred, are pioneer legislation to provide a legal framework for Aussat Pty Ltd, the company which will operate the national domestic satellite system. This is a further step in a new era of communications for Australia. When one considers that Canada, the country most comparable to Australia, has had such a system for over 10 years one can see that Australia is certainly not a world pioneer in domestic satellite communications. The Minister in his second reading speech referred to the establishment of the National Communications Satellite Task Force in 1977. Since then the coalition Government and a succession of Ministers for Communications-including the Hon. Tony Staley, the then member for Chisholm, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the Hon. Neil Brown, the then member for Diamond Valley-have moved this country to space age communications by a series of key decisions. Whilst I do not agree with some of the decisions that have been made since March 1983 by the present Government and the Minister for Communications, they have, nevertheless, continued to make decisions which confirm the 1985 and beyond launchings and the infrastructure necessary for a successful system. This legislation, although not identical to what the coalition in government would have introduced, is, nevertheless, substantially the same. Therefore, the Opposition generally supports the legislation and will not oppose the Bills at the second reading stage. However, during the Committee stage the Opposition will move amendments and require the House to divide on certain aspects of the Bills with which it strongly disagrees. In brief, the proposed amendments, or points of opposition, relate first of all to the obligations of the directors, the Telecom Australia shareholding and the restrictions on third party private data and voice traffic through Aussat. The Opposition also supports the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill and the greater commercial role this will allow Telecom. There will be a second reading amendment drawing attention to the need for any Telecom subsidiary to be genuinely commercial, but a division will not be called. The increased business opportunity for Telecom by this amendment to the Telecommunications Act, which is part of that second Bill, is far more important for Telecom's future than whether Telecom has any shares in the Aussat company. The Opposition strongly supports the requirement for Aussat to operate as a completely commercial company, as is detailed in the legislation; for Aussat to be able to erect its own telecommunications facilities for satellite links; and for private companies using the satellite to be allowed to erect and operate their own earth stations. The Opposition is also not opposed to Aussat being prevented from operating a public switched telephone and data service, as this would not be practicable. The legislation further confirms Telecom as the monopoly public switched telecommunications provider for Australia. Nevertheless, with these two pieces of legislation there is the overall impression that Telecom is being unnecessarily protected and pandered to by this legislation, and this reflects the power of certain unions over this Government. In particular when one compares the legislative restriction on Aussat to that on Telecom I wonder why, other than for the above reason, so much is necessary to protect the Telecom elephant from the Aussat mouse. I refer to such points as confirming once again the Telecom monopoly for the private switched network, which has already been confirmed on a number of occasions; the completely unnecessary 25 per cent Telecom shareholding in Aussat, permitting joint ventures and subsidiary companies for Telecom but not for Aussat; and Telecom being allowed to determine its own rules for third party use of its leased or private lines, but Aussat being subject to ministerial regulation for the same purposes-and one could go on. In addition to the parts of the Bill which I have already mentioned which the Opposition supports and which it opposes, there is also a major omission from the Bill. In clause 8 of the Satellite Communications Bill are the details of obligations for the directors of Aussat. The directors, as far as practicable, are required to ensure that space facilities should be made available for, first of all, air navigation and related safety services; secondly, for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for remote area television and radio; and thirdly, for Telecom for telephonic services for remote areas and emergency services. The Government has conveniently tried to forget its obligation to provide also through Aussat a free commercial television and radio service for people in remote areas. Therefore, the Opposition will be adding a further obligation by amendment in Committee to cover this omission. The coalition, when in government, with its Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service policy for the people in the remote areas of Australia, using the high powered transponders on the two satellites that are to be launched late next year in spot beam mode, was to provide both an Australian Broadcasting Corporation service and a commercial radio and television service to those living in remote areas of Australia. The Australian Labor Party, during the election campaign, promised the same; that is, the dual service for people living in remote areas, but decisions made by the Labor Government since then will make this very difficult to achieve. Obviously the Government would prefer everyone to forget that promise and to forget that that was a basic reason for bringing in Aussat in the first place. The Opposition believes that it is the right of all Australians to have access to both ABC and commercial television and radio. Pay television should also be available as soon as possible to all Australians, but available as a third type of program choice, not as a second choice and a second best option to those living in remote areas. Union power forcing this Government to alter its policy with regard to the ownership of Aussat is the most obvious solution, with up to, as I mentioned, 25 per cent Telecom shareholding. Only last May the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the mini-Budget, confirmed that it was the Labor Government's policy, as it was and still is the coalition parties' policy, to make Aussat eventually a public company with up to 49 per cent of public shareholding but with a majority of government ownership. I remind all honourable members that that was clearly stated in the mini-Budget speech by the Treasurer last May. The Treasurer indicated no timetable for this conversion from a private to a public company. However, as can be seen from the Budget Papers, the Department of the Treasury, at least, believed that it would be this financial year. The coalition parties were and still are relaxed in our requirement for any change from private to public company status. We believe that the appropriate time for a public float is when Aussat can show that it is commercially viable. That is common sense from a business point of view. Mr Charles —Let the taxpayers carry the can until then. Mr LLOYD —That is an interesting interjection about the taxpayers carrying the can until then because with the Government's form of ownership it is really saying that the taxpayers have to carry the can for eternity. If I were the honourable member I would be a little bit more careful before I made any interjections because what he is saying-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The House will come to order. I remind the honourable member for Murray that when the Speaker gets to his or her feet everyone else in the House sits down. Mr LLOYD —Madam Deputy Speaker, I accept that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for Isaacs is taking part in this debate later. He will not facilitate the debate by interrupting the speaker. Mr LLOYD —I apologise for not sitting. You were correct in reprimanding me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Maher —Just bad manners. Mr LLOYD —A person is not bad mannered when he apologises. One of these days the honourable member might learn to apologise and then he might have some manners. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie is not assisting the Chair. Mr LLOYD —I return to the interjection. It was an interesting interjection because the honourable member has inferred that Aussat can never be viable. Mr Charles —I did not say that; that is not true. Mr LLOYD —The honourable member said that as the Opposition was relaxed about the period in which the status of Aussat changed from a private to a public company it meant that, in the meantime, the taxpayer would have to carry the can . The honourable member said, therefore, that it is his belief that the Government is confirming by this legislation the status of Aussat as a private company. We are not trying to alter that status by any amendment. It is his belief that Aussat can never be profitable and therefore he is quite happy for the taxpayer to carry the can for all time. Mr Braithwaite —He would be wise if he forgot the interjection. Mr LLOYD —I agree. The honourable member would be very wise to forget that interjection as quickly as possible. Mr Campbell —What the honourable member is saying is that as soon as it makes a profit flog it off. Mr LLOYD —That is also an interesting interjection. It is part of the Bill and part of the Minister's second reading speech that Aussat is to be run as a commercially viable operation. In other words, it is the Government's intention for it to be profitable. The honourable member is using the word 'profit' as a dirty word, and profit has always been the intention of the Government. I was quite happy to speak here about some form of unison on both sides of the House. We are quite happy for Aussat to remain a private company for the time being. That is certainly no different from the Government's policy as stated in the Treasurer's statement of May last year. Mr Hand —We have improved it. Mr LLOYD —That is one version; I do not think it is the general version. The amendment I will move in Committee only confirms the present status of Aussat as a private company with all its shares owned by the Commonwealth. We have not tried to delete clause 10, which states that Aussat is not capable of being converted to a public company. Telecom owning 25 per cent will do nothing for the most efficient use of the satellite or the greatest degree of co-operation between Telecom and Aussat. That co-operation, which is essential, comes from board members and the senior management of the two organisations recognising the need to co-operate and instructing their officers to get on with it. Because of that, I believe it is sensible for Telecom to have representation on the Aussat board but that does not require percentage ownership. Mr Hand —Why don't you like Telecom? Why do you hate Telecom? Mr LLOYD —I am a great believer and supporter of Telecom. If the honourable member would just sit back and listen to what I am saying-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I invite the honourable member for Murray to ignore interjections. Mr LLOYD —Madam Deputy Speaker, when somebody makes that sort of personal imputation one has to respond to it. I do not think it is correct to allow that sort of personal slur to go without some response. If one listens to this speech one will see that I am a great supporter of Telecom. I always have been and I always will be. That does not mean to say that I do not differ, as do members of the Government from time to time, with something Telecom may or may not be doing at a particular time. I understand that as the launching date approaches there is greater recognition of the advantages for Telecom as well as for the nation of Telecom maximising its use of the satellite. I was told by satellite companies in Canada and the United States last year that the experience in those countries was much the same as here in relation to telecommunications companies and their initial opposition to satellites. If it is correct for Telecom to have a percentage of the ownership of Aussat because it is a major user or uses related technology, then Australia Post should have a percentage ownership of Telecom and Trans Australia Airlines should have a percentage ownership of Qantas Airways Ltd. One could go on ad infinitum around all of the government statutory authorities and government private companies and so forth. The argument is absurd. The only definite point that can be made is that the $21m that Telecom will have to contribute for its shareholding of Aussat is $21m which Telecom cannot spend on upgrading the terrestrial network. Telecom is always complaining, I believe with justification, that its financing for such purposes-in other words, for improving the network-is never enough. Mr Simmons —What would you lot do? Mr LLOYD —That is another interesting interjection-'What would you lot do?' When we were in government we increased the capital available to Telecom for upgrading the terrestrial network by a higher percentage than this Government. So the honourable member should be a little more careful before he makes any more interjections. He should stick with Paterson's curse. I do not think he knows much about that but at least it is something worth hammering. Clause l3 of the Bill prohibits Aussat from providing services of a kind known as public switched telephone or data services. As I said earlier, this confirms the Telecom monopoly and the Opposition does not oppose the clause. We support that particular proposition. It does not prohibit Aussat leasing transponder capacity for private, company or organisation use. The degree of additional use by a third person or what constitutes the limit of a company or an organisation for such purposes, which is collectively known as third party traffic, is a matter of some debate in Australia and in other countries in relation to telecommunications generally. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that the Government's intention in restricting such traffic to regulate the satellite service is 'in line with existing regulation by Telecom of terrestrial services'. Obviously 'in line' does not mean the same or equal because I have received a considerable number of complaints from potential Aussat users that although Telecom is allowed to determine its own rules for third party traffic, Aussat will be constrained by ministerial regulation. Furthermore, Telecom is not only exempt from the ministerial regulation restriction for its own terrestrial network but also it is exempt, along with Australia Post and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, when it uses Aussat for similar purposes . I do not object to that exemption. It should be remembered that the potential telecommunications traffic in a competitive situation between the two organisations is about 4 per cent of the total. The public switched network alone accounts for about 92 per cent, and only half of the remainder is in possible competition. To be realistic, Aussat can be competitive only over very long distances. Why should the Telecom elephant be further protected from the Aussat mouse? Why should news-providing organisations, computer and data services, travel booking agencies, electronic mail services and program transmission between different television and radio companies be so unfairly restricted by this potential ministerial regulation situation? A further amendment which we will move at the Committee stage, if successful, will give Aussat the same power as Telecom has; that is, the power to determine its own regulations. I give notice that I will be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill expressing the general concern of industry that any joint venture, subsidiary company or technical consultancy is genuinely commercial and subject to the same commercial requirements-those of taxes, superannuation payments, equity capital and dividends, sales tax on vehicles, equipment, office rental costs; et cetera- as companies in the real commercial world are subject to. There is little outside opposition to the aim of allowing Telecom to be more commercial and competitive, for encouraging its research to be more market oriented and for consultancy to be charged for; that is, when Telecom operates as a consultant, either in Australia or overseas. This legislation provides the opportunity for Telecom to establish these genuine subsidiary companies in areas such as paging, mobile phones, videotex and even the telequip proposal of the Davidson variety. So the legislation does offer a great opportunity for Telecom. The Opposition supports that opportunity. There is a lingering outside suspicion, as for example with Australia Post's courier service, that Telecom will not be completely competitive; that it will be both a manufacturing partner and the monopoly purchaser of the equipment that has been manufactured; that the very extensive Telecom workshops will be geared up to actual commercial production; that Telecom will still lease its private automatic branch exchanges for offices and factories and thus avoid the sales tax required of other companies also trying to offer those PABXs; that Telecom venture capital will not be equity capital but Treasury advances and that Telecom will try hard to be neutral and not push Australian telecommunications equipment overseas. I received an interesting complaint in that regard. Telecom probably feels that it has been very neutral in any advice it has given on overseas matters. The suggestion has been made that in the future when Telecom, as distinct perhaps from foreign aid arrangements, does something on a commercial basis it should take the opportunity, as do the major Telecom companies or whatever they are called in other countries, to push Australian telecommunications equipment at the same time. As I said earlier, here is the opportunity for Telecom to prove these suspicions wrong. It has been given the chance to cautiously and sensibly move in a new direction in a very commercial way. As I said earlier, the Opposition generally supports the legislation, but I will be moving amendments at the appropriate time. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.44) —The Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill carry out the legislative intent which flows from the Government's decisions regarding Aussat Ltd and related matters taken in November last year and announced by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in this House on 15 November last year. Those decisions were taken after several months of discussion within the industry and inquiry by the Government through its Communications Committee which made recommendations to the Minister, the Department of Communications and then, via the Cabinet, the Government Party rooms. The decisions were seen by the industry as a step forward. Clearly, the industry, by its indications at the inquiry that was held, showed that it felt that the Government was about to make some firm decisions regarding the future of communications in this country which for so long had gone round and round in circles under the previous Government, under Ministers Staley, Sinclair and Brown in succession, if my memory serves me correctly. The non-decisions of that Government over many years threatened to put the industry in total chaos. I spoke about that in this House late last year. Let us look at the legislation. As I have said, it carries out the intent of the major statement released by the Minister for Communications on 15 November last year. Apart from the primary objective of Aussat and the obligations of the directors, the main clauses of the Bill-one might say the controversial clauses- would be clause 11 which takes in the shareholding of Aussat, clause 12, concerning the winding up of Aussat which is an important clause which I will talk about later; clause 13 under which Aussat cannot provide certain services and clause 17 which, subject to regulation, prohibits persons carrying on a business involving a third party. Those two clauses protect and safeguard the Australian Telecommunication Commission's very important role in our telecommunications system. Clause 14 allows certain persons to erect and maintain telecommunications facilities for internal purposes. They are the main clauses that will probably be debated in this chamber today. Let us turn to the ownership clause. It states that shares in Aussat are not capable of being held by any person other than the Commonwealth, the Commission- that is, Telecom-or a trustee for the Commonwealth. Another part of that clause states that the Commission's shares shall not exceed 25 per cent. However, we see before us an amendment to be moved later which would allow up to 100 per cent private ownership. That will be moved, I assume, by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) at the Committee stage. I will come back to that in a minute. The integration of Telecom and Aussat, and I mean integration in trying to get these two bodies together so that we can have a policy for the future of communications and telecommunications for the betterment of all Australians, was succinctly put by the Minister in his second reading speech when he said: The Bills together express the Government's intention that the telecommunications system provided by Telecom Australia and the satellite telecommunications system provided by Aussat Pty Ltd shall together form one national telecommunications network for Australia. That succinctly puts the Government's case on this subject. That is one of the reasons why the Government decided to offer Telecom 25 per cent of the shares in Aussat so that it can have a distinct input into the decision making of Aussat and we can see the policies of those two bodies combining to the betterment of our communications system. According to the amendment before us, I believe it would allow up to 100 per cent private ownership. If that were agreed to it would allow Aussat to be flogged off to private enterprise and would result in the breaking up of the communications system of this country away from any public enterprise and into private hands. I believe that would be an extremely bad thing. I would oppose that with all the will I could muster. Who knows who would get the shares? I am quite sure that members of the Opposition would jump up and down if the Communist Party of Australia decided to buy into Aussat. They would have another think about it then. Their footwork would quicken up quite decidedly if that occurred; yet that is what the proposed amendment basically provides. It is designed to flog it all off. In the Australian yesterday, under the heading ' Coalition decides on Aussat changes', it is reported: The Opposition spokesman on communications, Mr Bruce Lloyd, told yesterday's meeting that although the amendment did not call for a 49 per cent public shareholding in line with Coalition policy, it was not realistic to do so until Aussat becomes a commercially viable company. Contrary to what the honourable member for Murray said a little while ago, that implies that the Opposition will not consider flogging off the company until it becomes commercially viable. In other words, the honourable member has said: 'We won't flog it off now, because it might not be commercially viable'. What hypocrisy! In principle, one either believes it should be publicly owned or privately owned. Everyone on this side of the House and, I think, the vast majority of Australians believe Aussat should be publicly owned; yet the Opposition says that there will be private ownership only if the company becomes commercially viable. What hypocrisy! That is just rubbish. The Opposition is saying: 'If it becomes commercially viable, by golly, we cannot leave it in the taxpayers' hands; we cannot leave it as a government corporation. A government body making money is just not on'. That is a ridiculous situation. We believe that Aussat can become commercially viable. We sincerely hope it will be. I know, not hope, that it will stay in the hands of public enterprise. I believe it will stay as provided for in this legislation; that is, 75 per cent under the control of the Commonwealth with Telecom having a 25 per cent share so that it can have an input into the decision making, bringing together those two very important bodies, Telecom and Aussat. I turn now to the proposed amendments touching on the ownership question. The proposed amendment to clause 8 comes to the consortium question. The proposed amendments to clause 17 basically back up the report of the Davidson Inquiry into Telecommunications Services in Australia. The Opposition knows that the Government will oppose all those proposed amendments for very good reasons which we will state later. If this legislation is blocked, only two things can happen. Either the satellite will not go up or, as the Opposition knows because the powers are there, Telecom could own 100 per cent of Aussat. The honourable member for Murray should see how Opposition members would like the path he is taking them down. He is taking the National Party down that path and he should see how National Party members like it if the satellite does not go up or if Telecom owns 100 per cent of Aussat. The National Party would then have no one here; they would all be back milking cows after the next election. The honourable member for Murray is trying to take the Leader of the Opposition, the members of the Opposition and, in particular, the National Party down that path. It is ridiculous in the extreme and the incompetence the honourable member for Murray has shown as the Opposition spokesman for communications is just outrageous. How would he be going to Kerry Packer and saying to him: 'I have done a wonderful job. Yesterday Telecom had 25 per cent of the shares in Aussat and today, because of my wonderful work, it now has 100 per cent'? Mr Simmons —He would love that. Mr CHARLES —He would love that, all right. The honourable member would be back milking cows before you could say Jack Robinson. Mr Braithwaite —That is blackmail. Mr CHARLES —That is not blackmail. It is the outcome. The Opposition's idea is to flog off the company to anyone who can make a profit out of it; blow the communications of this country. One of the most important things in the defence of a country is its communications and telecommunications. The history of the world will show that; yet the Opposition says: 'We do not want the Government or the people of Australia to own Aussat. We want to flog it off so that private enterprise can own it'. When a crisis comes, what happens? The first things one needs to control are the communications of the country, yet the Opposition has said that it does not want that, that it wants to flog it off. The proposed amendment to clause 8 basically means that the second satellite, the second Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service, would be owned by a commercial consortium. That is really what it is all about. The former Government could not put that together. The Opposition knows as well as I do that consortiums involve numerous people from all the metropolitan networks and rural networks. It is virtually impossible to put them together. If one link breaks down the whole thing collapses. The former Government under Minister Brown could not put that together. It turned into a complete farce and yet today , about 18 months after the Opposition failed to do that, it puts the same thing forward. The proposed amendment to clause 8 puts forward the consortium idea that was thrown out by the previous Government. It did not work then and it will not work now. It will never work for very obvious reasons. The shortsightedness of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Murray who puts forward this proposal, is obvious. I do not understand how the Opposition could make a man such as the honourable member for Murray its spokesman on communications. He has no idea and is leading members of his Party down a path that will lead to the people he purports to represent totally disagreeing with him. Mr Simmons —They will laugh at them. Mr CHARLES —They will laugh at them. One of the proposed amendments to clause 17 touches on the matter of a third party. This refers to the Davidson inquiry which suggested that there be private networks. We have gone through all this before. It is absolute nonsense. Private networks want to take up only the profitable areas. They do not want to go into the rural areas; they just want to have the Melbourne-Sydney trunkline or data and the like where there is tremendous profit. They do not want to go into the areas of rural telephony because it makes a loss. When private enterprise comes forward with a complete package and says that as a private entrepreneur it will cover the same areas covered by Telecom, this Government will consider it. No private entrepreneur has done that and no private entrepreneur is likely to do it. It is sheer nonsense to suggest in this House that we should flog off parts of Aussat to private enterprise, allowing it to move into the profitable area. The complete hypocrisy of the Opposition in all of this is absurd in the extreme. As I mentioned, the Minister clarified the position of remote areas when he stated in his second reading speech: Clearly, the satellite will be a boon to those living in the more remote and outback regions of Australia. It will bring to those Australians the benefits of ABC radio and television services through the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. That succinctly puts the position; yet the Opposition, led by the National Party, says the opposite. It wants to block the move so that we cannot do the things that it has said we should have done ages ago. The Government has clearly put forward in this legislation restrictions on Aussat which, I believe, are necessary. In clauses 13 and 17 there are restrictions on Aussat's moving into the publicly switched telephone and publicly switched data services. Clause 17 provides restrictions in regard to carrying on third party business, about which I have just spoken. That is quite sensible. Telecom is not some socialist monster, but an organisation controlling the communications of this country. Aussat and Telecom can work together to provide the best communication and telecommunication system in this country. Something members of the Opposition continually forget is that at this stage we have one of the best communication systems in the world. They are a shambles in some other parts of the world, including the United States of America where private enterprise and deregulations have run riot. The Minister, in his speech on 15 November, said: The Government has also decided that private sector users of the satellite may own and operate earth stations to access the satellite and own terrestrial links to connect their earth stations to their premises. They will not be permitted to sell spare transponder capacity nor to allow third party traffic. In other words the regulation of satellite services will be in line with existing regulation by Telecom of terrestrial services. That succinctly puts the Government's case. The legislation will allow private companies-some who want to do so have been mentioned to the Government-to set up an internal network. It will not stop a company which may have 500 branches throughout Australia from setting up an internal network and from having a system in each branch so that the company from its headquarters can access the satellite and back straight down to its branches. That is allowable because it is an internal network. Companies are not allowed to venture into the business of third party traffic or to go off and flog it to anyone else. That is quite acceptable. It is an internal matter. It would probably benefit companies which are able to provide those facilities internally. It would save a lot of time and the problems they would have if they had to go elsewhere. Clause 12 in the legislation before us today, which I mentioned earlier and said I would get back to, deals with the winding up of Aussat. It states: 12. Aussat is not capable of being- (a) voluntarily wound up- I will not read the whole clause- . . . except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament. So we cannot have someone just deciding to wind up Aussat and alter the whole communications system of this country overnight. There must be a resolution of both Houses of Parliament before that situation can take place. The legislation before us faithfully reflects the statement by the Minister on behalf of the Government on 15 November last. It is interesting that all sorts of propositions have been put up by the Opposition. I assume it will try to block certain parts of the legislation or to change it in another place. As I said earlier, there are only one or two things that could incur. It would mean that either the satellite does not go up at all or possibly that a new ownership formula will be brought out, which could mean 100 per cent Telecom ownership. That is what such action would mean. It is not blackmail or anything like that, as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) said earlier. That is really what it amounts to. The Government's formula which was stated in November of last year is very sensible. It was thought out after several months of inquiry when we came to decisions which the industry had been waiting on for years but had never got from the previous Government via its Ministers, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the previous honourable member for Diamond Valley, Mr N. A. Brown. I refer especially to the right honourable member for New England who was totally useless in that portfolio. I think the industry felt that there was a breath of fresh air when this present Minister and this Government came in and decided to make decisions to set up an inquiry which was limited in its time span and which brought recommendations forward. Those decisions have been made. I believe they are the best for communications and for the telecommunications system of this country now and for the future. Those decisions related to the supplementary licences and radiated subscription television. The latter will also be resolved later this year. Definite decisions will be made by this Government. We have a definite plan which has been put forward by the Minister on behalf of the Government, which for the previous 30- odd years, especially since television came in, the previous governments floundered with time and time again. The amendments which will come forward later are a load of nonsense, to put it bluntly. I commend the Bills before us here and strongly believe that all members of this House, especially the members of the National Party of Australia, should support them. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.4) —The legislation dealing with the domestic satellite- the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications ( Consequential Amendments) Bill-is here only because a previous government, the Fraser Liberal Government, took a decision preceding 1982, but confirmed in this place in May 1982, that there would be the launching of a satellite. We have heard a lot of talk coming from honourable members opposite about their prompt decisions regarding a satellite. There would be no satellite had the Government in 1982 been of the political persuasion of those who sit opposite today. While I am using the word persuasion, I will give honourable members a good reason for that. The reason is that the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association would have told the Government that it could not launch one. Mr Simmons —What rubbish! Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member should not say to me: 'What rubbish!'. He knows it; I know it. I was at Alice Springs and heard those people. I remember the program. I remember the campaign of ATEA to stop the previous Government from going into satellite technology. I remember the campaign of Senator Susan Ryan to convince people all around Australia that Australia should not go into satellite technology. I remember the renewed campaign of the ATEA against this Government when it came to power. The facts of life are that this piece of legislation would not be here today- and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) would not be here to debate this matter today-had it not been for the actions of a government that also was able to come to grips with a situation and fight off lobby groups and those people with the vested interests who wanted to maintain not a good telecommunications system for Australia but the right to be able to control completely the country of Australia as our dependence on the electronic communications system rose daily. That is what they wanted. They knew that that is what they had to have. So honourable members opposite should not talk about what they have done. All they have done is make some modifications to one of the great decisions which was taken in Australian politics in the field of communications, and without doubt the greatest decision in recent times. Let us get that straight for a start. Let us think about some of the statements of the honourable member for Isaacs ( Mr Charles). He says he is not threatening us. He says that the only solution to not accepting this Bill in toto is ownership by Telecom Australia. I would like someone, a later speaker or maybe the Minister, to tell me the logic of that statement. Mr Lloyd —Where is the Government in this? Mr TUCKEY —I just want to know the logic of moving from total government ownership, a section of private ownership and government ownership. I want someone to explain to me the logic of moving from that situation to total ownership by Telecom. I can accept the political reality of that decision for the Government. I know what the Government is telling us. It is telling us that the best possible deal that this very responsible Minister could get-he knows better-out of Caucus was 25 per cent ownership for Telecom. That was the deal. That was the reason why he could at least bring forward this piece of legislation. That is what honourable members opposite are telling us. They are not telling us the logical situation. They are telling us the political reality of the Australian Labor Party and the telecommunications unions. I do not think that the Australian Telecommunications Commission is at least as worried as the telecommunications unions. The unions have said: 'That is the least we will accept'. That is why the Government is bringing forward this legislation. I ask the honourable member for Isaacs to explain the logic to me of what he told us when he said that the only other solution is total ownership by Telecom. He should not talk rubbish about the satellite not going up. He should tell us the current investment of the Australian taxpayer in this project. He cannot tell me that we will leave those satellites lying around in some warehouse of the Hughes Corporation. That is absolute rubbish. The honourable member knows it will not happen. We know it will go up. We are saying to honourable members opposite that it would have been wiser to stick to the other rules. If they want a good reason for that, let us forget for a minute the influence of the Telecom unions-- Mr Campbell —You wouldn't know. Mr TUCKEY —I want the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to listen to what I will say because he well knows the number of people in his electorate and in mine who as yet do not have a telephone or an adequate telephone service. Honourable members opposite are requesting Telecom to invest good hard cash in an arena where it is not needed. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie knows the sorts of letters he will get in the very near future from one of his Telecom regional offices. It will state: 'Dear Mr Campbell, we are terribly sorry that in regard to your very reasonable and sensible request for telephones for certain of your constituents, they are not available. We are sorry. We have not got the money'. But Telecom has enough money to put into something where it is not needed and which will satisfy only a couple of persons and that is the President and the Secretary of the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. Let us get it straight: The first thing that is needed is to invest in what it does best, and that is the provision of telephones. When I have a satisfactory telephone service for my subscribers, and most of them live within 200 miles of a capital city, I will concede to honourable members opposite that Telecom can go running around the countryside investing in areas where there is no need for its financial support. Aussat does not need their money; it can get that from other places. Aussat can go ahead. It is a shame that people will continue to be denied telephones because Telecom will say that it has not enough money. Mr Campbell —You know that that is not true. Mr TUCKEY —Apparently there are other reasons why the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has been unable to get telephones for his constituents. I might try harder than he does. I might be the only one who receives those sorts of answers . If I may indulge in a little aside, the honourable member said the other day that he had been invited to Merriden to speak to the Primary Industry Association. He has been invited because Senator Walsh would not go. If he wants to know who the other invited speaker is, it is me. He is worried and tells us that he has guaranteed that there will be no politics-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will return to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member does not want politics to intrude because that means that people would get up and describe what his Government is doing to country people. He squeals his head off because he cannot give the answers. He tells them to go and borrow some more money-although these people have had drought for five of the last seven years and have exhausted every means of borrowing. As the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has said, the legislation contains much that is good and is getting on with the job, a job that was started by the Fraser Government-one that would not otherwise have been started. If I may refer to the legislation-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please do. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that I have been right on the spot as far as the legislation is concerned. Its primary objective, of course, is that the system should operate on a sound commercial basis. That is very desirable. Nevertheless, when I see the structure that is being forced on us I wonder whether that will be the case. I say to the Minister as a warning that I sincerely hope that over time he will ensure that the board of management he provides for Aussat will be capable of making good commercial judgments. We have seen recently, in the case of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, that the abilities of the directors have been aimed much more at public opinion than at running a massive business. Although I can see that there is room for that sort of input, the prime requirement in meeting the conditions of this Act, as to sound commercial principles, is that we have people who understand sound commercial principles and can deliver the goods. That is not a comment on the present make-up of the Board. I am just drawing to the attention of the Minister the fact that we hope he will not fall foul, as time goes by, of specific interest groups. Of course we know now that, in a normal commercial sense, the Telecom unions will be demanding a seat on the Board. It is the intention of Parliament that the telecommunications system be provided by the Commission and that Aussat will provide only the space segment. That is a great pity. I do not agree entirely with the comments of the honourable member for Isaacs that private enterprise would want only the most profitable links in the telecommunications system. I say that because, quite clearly, whilst it sounds good commercial reality, it is not reality if, for instance, Elders-IXL, a substantial user of telecommunications services, were to take services from someone who offered it only STD links on the great boomerang. I am just wondering how it would conduct business with its customers in that event. Its customers do not happen to live on that link; they live out in the country. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said yesterday, it takes two to tango, and when you make a telephone call you must have someone who can receive it. I still believe that there is clear evidence that parts of the system cross- subsidise other parts. I am grateful that government after government, in association with the Australian Telecommunications Commission, has seen fit to create such cross-subsidisation, but it is not as real as it looks because, unfortunately, the revenue is measured at the point of making the call. So many calls would not be made if there were not someone in an area where the revenue was much lower. I am very pleased to see that the directors will have the obligation of providing space station facilities to the Commonwealth for air navigation purposes. That would no doubt be one of the great improvements available to Australia. It is very wise. The Department of Aviation is proposing the establishment of some 440 earth stations in some 230 locations. I have been the holder of a private pilot's licence and at the moment am in the process of renewing it. I am only too well aware of the great limitations that are presently imposed on the aviation industry in regard to communications, especially in Western Australia where the distances are so great and the present communications system is so completely useless at certain times of the evening. One can have communication facilities in one's airplane but, because of interference, especially from radio stations in Indonesia and other places, it becomes totally useless. Clearly, this is an excellent facility that will occur by use of the satellite. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that the directors of Aussat shall ensure that, so far as is practicable, Aussat is able to meet the requirements for space satellite facilities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of the provision by the Corporation of television and broadcasting services to remote communities and dwellings. Everyone is extremely happy about that. Unfortunately, the Government has been unable to come to grips with the role of commercial television in this arena. That is a problem that I know presents great difficulties generally, but it does not apply to the remote areas. I would like to refer to a letter sent to the Minister by the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia (Inc.) and to a covering letter, in which Mr Peter J. Lee, the Senior Vice-President of the organisation, writes to me: In his reply to my previous letter, the Minister has stated that the Federal Government intends to retain the restrictions designed to prohibit the direct broadcasting of Commercial T.V. from the Satellite. It is not reasonable for the Minister to state that it is entirely a commercial matter for Aussat to allocate transponders if his Government has introduced restrictions which will make the W.A. Government consortium's proposal unworkable. The Primary Industry Association asks that you request the Minister to remove those restrictions which preclude this commercially orientated proposal from filling the needs of Rural W.A., as the protection afforded to existing T.V. Stations is neither justified or necessary. Maybe there are some constitutional difficulties for the Minister but, if not, I point out that there is a clear difference between the role of rural and remote area dwellers and that of persons living in the major cities. First, people in the major cities already have substantial television services provided by government stations 1 and 2-they now have the Special Broadcasting Service-and in addition usually have available the services of three commercial stations. Within my electorate, as I have pointed out previously, most people do not reside within 200 miles of a capital city and receive no television of an acceptable standard at all. Now, at a cost of $1,000 each-which other people have not had to pay-for a service, they will receive the ABC programs. That cost could be halved, in relation to the number of stations provided, if a commercial program were available. As Mr Lee wrote to the Minister: As your advisors have shown that they have no appreciation of conditions in W.A ., may I point out the flaws in some of the assumptions they have made. l. An 'advertiser funded' T.V. service is not economically viable, and commercial T.V. in remote areas must await Radiated Subscription Television ( RSTV).The fact is commercial television stations are prepared to offer an advertiser funded service for direct transmission to consumers, if they are allowed to do so! In that regard the Minister has received a submission from the State Government of Western Australia saying how it can be done. Another submission has been made by the Golden West network which is already actively offering services in my electorate and the less populated areas of Western Australia. Clearly, that network is prepared to do it, clearly it could do it and clearly there is a responsibility to see that these people have commercial television. While there is only one station the service will be inadequate, no matter what one's interest in television may be. I get as many letters complaining about the lack of sport shown on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as I get letters complaining that there is too much sport. That quite realistic situation reflects people's tastes. Quite clearly, people can have some form of choice when there are two stations in those remote areas. People in the small town of Norseman in the electorate of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and, more importantly, people in a much smaller town called Salmon Gums were able to see big time sport on the ABC. A small terrestrial commercial station was established at Norseman, and as a result the ABC was no longer able to transmit major sporting events in that region. The pity of it, of course, is that the signal from the commercial station does not reach Salmon Gums so the people of that town now have to go without. This situation is not the fault of the Government or the ABC. However, it will be if they do not put their minds to the need for rural Australians to have two services. I am sure there is a way that is both constitutional and acceptable to the Australian public to recognise the real needs of people in remote areas to have an adequate commercial television service. I am not able to answer the question technically but it would not be surprising to me if a spot beam could be constructed to deal with this problem in central Australia. Maybe two spot beams would be needed because I appreciate that I am talking about a huge area. The problem lies in central and northern Australia. In my case, the problem in central Australia in terms of lack of television facilities starts about 200 miles from the west coast of Western Australia. But there is a real need for this facility. The Primary Industry Association of Western Australia is quite right. It raised three or four issues as to why the Minister's advisers have been misled or have misled the Minister. The Association pointed out another myth in the assumption that supplementary licences will increase the options available to country people. That is certainly true but they will increase those options only where a television station is operating now. Maybe the service will be extended a little further by 10 or 15 miles. However, that is all that will do. Only the satellite will enable universal commercial television to be provided to remote areas and this has to be treated as a separate problem. I think it can be. The PIA raised another flaw: To ensure that the needs of consumers do not interfere . . . It made a lot of play about consumers. I think it is quite right. Government after government-I would not say that ours was much better-worries about the television station. We worry about the profitability of a television station. We have inquiries to see whether there is enough room for another lot to make money . We never ask ourselves: 'What would the consumer like?' Surely these are the people for whom this Parliament has a responsibility to be concerned. Mr Lee makes quite clear the point that the consumer has not been considered sufficiently and I agree with him entirely. He also points out, of course, that he wonders how many people would pay $1,000 in the metropolitan area for the privilege of getting commercial television of the type that is provided to country people. He says that is sufficient restriction in itself and I tend to agree with him somewhat. I support the amendments of the honourable member for Murray. I reject the suggestion that he is not both able and energetic in his responsibilities. I am a lot closer to him than is the honourable member for Isaacs. I think the honourable member does a tremendous job. I am sure that the country people of Australia will be very satisfied to have a man who will give them the sorts of things they want which he knows, from his direct experience. He is not a man of the 10c telephone call; he is not a man of the Falcon tyre when it comes to retreads. He knows what it is like out there in the bush and he is doing a great job. I congratulate him. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(11.15) —I believe the launch of the Australian domestic satellite in l985 will mark a significant milestone in the history of telecommunications in Australia. Specifically, it will mean that Australians in any populated or remote part of the nation will have access to improved communications services. I know that the debate on these subjects often focuses upon principally broadcasting services but it is important to realise that the launch of the domestic satellite encompasses all types of telecommunications services. As the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) noted in his second reading speech on 29 February: The unique nature of satellite technology means that distance is no longer a major inhibiting factor in bringing news, information and entertainment to all Australians, wherever they may live. Clearly, the satellite will be a boon to those living in the more remote outback regions of Australia. I am somewhat intrigued, as I guess all honourable members are, when the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) speaks in this chamber as he often does. To me, the honourable member at times has a strange sense of logic. Mr Hand —There is one member of the Liberal Party in the chamber. Mr SIMMONS —I think that is a significant point, too. One could count the number of Opposition members in this chamber during this most important satellite debate on one hand and have fingers left over-in fact, four fingers left over. The honourable member for O'Connor seems to make some sort of distinction between land-based systems and satellite communication systems. I really cannot see the distinction that he wants to make between the ownership of terrestrial systems and satellite systems. They are all fundamentally telecommunications systems whether they be ground-based or up in the air. Another aspect, which I guess is a characteristic feature of the honourable member for O'Connor, is his well known views on unions. I do not think I have sat in this chamber on too many occasions when the honourable member has not taken the opportunity to engage in a little bit of old style union bashing. I make the point that despite his attacks on the views of the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association on the ownership of the satellite, or whether there should be a satellite at all, those views were once supported by the former Leader of the National Party of Australia, Doug Anthony. Members of the National Party may not like to be reminded of the statement made by Mr Anthony at Cunnamulla on 14 June l978. Mr Ian Cameron —Cunnamulla is a good town. It is in Maranoa. Mr SIMMONS —The honourable member for Maranoa should listen because this is what his former leader is reported as saying: . . . he felt that the needs of people in remote areas could perhaps be better met by extending and improving ground facilities. He was not too worried about the satellite. Yet National Party members come into this chamber and continually bleat about being interested in remote areas and the need for improved communications services. This seems to be their attitude. I am not quite sure whether that is the same attitude that Mr Anthony expressed in the last few days prior to his retirement. But certainly he made that very firm and definitive statement a few years ago. How concerned are members of the National Party about improved communications services via the satellite. There seems to be a rather interesting and very strange alliance, to say the least, between the views of the ATEA and the former Leader of the National Party. The honourable member for O'Connor also often gets up in this chamber and claims to be some sort of astute business person. In this debate he constantly talked about the need to have a great deal of private enterprise involvement. I think that if one looks at some of the statements that my colleague the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) made in relation to the question of ownership-that is, the 49 per cent-51 per cent argument that seems to be put forward by members of the coalition-that argument can be shot down for the nonsense it is. The honourable member for O'Connor seems to have an appalling ignorance of the principles of cross-subsidisation. He really does not understand it at all. A great debate has raged in this country over the past few years-- Mr Lloyd —I take a point of order. I am usually tolerant of people who range away from the subject matter of Bills, and members on the other side of the House seem to be very particular about this. What the honourable member has said so far in his speech has had nothing to do with the legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. I invite the honourable member to be relevant to the Bill. Mr SIMMONS —Madam Deputy Speaker, I was coming back specifically to the question of the satellite. With due respect to your ruling, some of the nonsensical statements of the honourable member for O'Connor need to be challenged, and in particular the principles of cross-subsidisation that he mentioned in his wide- ranging speech certainly need to be challenged. I hope I have an opportunity to do that during my remarks. Honourable members would be aware that on 1 August 1983 my colleague the honourable member for Isaacs, as secretary of the Government communications sub- committee, wrote to more than 20 interested organisations which had expressed a degree of interest in the provision of broadcasting services via the satellite transponders. I might add that the initial invitation began a wide-ranging, thorough and certainly well publicised process by the five members of that committee over some three weeks. I was privileged to be a member of that committee. I would certainly like to thank the secretary of that committee, the honourable member for Isaacs, and pay particular tribute to the very hard working chairman, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), for his contribution during that time, along with the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) and the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh). Mr Lloyd —Madam Deputy Speaker, I suggest that you would have sat down someone from this side by now. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will now speak to the Bill. Mr SIMMONS —The decision, Madam Deputy Speaker, to establish this sub-committee followed a great deal of indecision over a period of years. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will speak to the Bill. Mr SIMMONS —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am coming to the major principles of the Satellite Communications Bill, but I think it is important that these remarks be made in the context of the debate on the Bill because they enshrine some of the principles that ultimately led to its drafting. The Bill covers a number of areas that are of great interest to me and, I believe, to most Government members as well. There are a number that I think have brought about a great deal of controversy in this chamber, principally the decision that is encompassed in the Bill that Aussat Pty Ltd is to be a wholly owned Commonwealth company, which cannot be converted into a public company. I think there are very good, sound and logical reasons for this. My colleague the honourable member for Isaacs, I believe, correctly enunciated some of those points. What is wrong with the principle of having 25 per cent ownership by Telecom Australia in our satellite? I think it is a reasonable proposition. After all, I get back to the point I made a few minutes ago, that we are talking about telecommunications. I do not think we necessarily need to distinguish between terrestrial systems and satellite services. A very important third aspect of the Bill is the fact that Aussat may not be voluntarily wound up or wound up by its shareholders except in accordance with a resolution passed by both Houses of this Parliament. I think it is important that a very important development in telecommunications technology be safeguarded with that assurance. The concern of members of Telecom unions relate to the aspects of providing public switched telephone services and public switched data services, which are also covered in the Bill, and the right to the use of a satellite facility which may not be sold or otherwise disposed of or approved to users of third parties. Now that is important and, I think, again referring to the problems that took place in this nation with respect to the recent Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia, shows the importance of not fragmenting our terrestrial system and indeed, when we have the domestic satellite, of fragmenting our entire telecommunications system. As an example cross- subsidisation should be very dear to the hearts of all people here, particularly to honourable members representing country constituencies. In my own area it was shown that the annual loss per telephone service in a city the size of Bathurst was about $200 per subscriber. That is the difference between the amount of revenue that came in and the cost to service a subscriber. No one is really interested in those non-profitable areas. No person, who is interested in operating a private telecommunications service in Australia, is interested in those remote areas; he is principally interested in the trunk routes of Australia. One cannot help but be amused, to say the least, by the flexibility of members of the National Party in the debate on the satellite Bill both in this Parliament and, of course, prior to the debate this morning. Remember the ongoing controversy that flared midway through 1983, when the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association seriously questioned the economics of the satellite proposal, preferring an extension of the terrestrial system. I have already made my comments about the former Leader of the National Party. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), now the Deputy Leader of the National Party, claimed on 5 July 1983 that the satellite system should proceed on schedule. He said that he: . . . had appealed to the Prime Minister, the honourable Bob Hawke, MP, to resist the selfish pressures from ATEA to have the proposed domestic satellite system scrapped. I think I have mentioned before that that attitude was in quite marked contrast to a statement made by his Leader a few years before. As I have said, it is fairly typical of the twisting and changing attitudes on the question. However, members of the National Party cannot always be taken too seriously. I notice that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has entered this chamber . I think we have to be particularly careful of some of his predictive abilities . Consider this statement he made on 8 September last year: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has already won a contract and Aussat is paying monthly instalments to NASA . . . We have seen the great success of the space shuttle. I believe we made the right decision by using the space shuttle to launch our domestic satellite . . . Let us hope that by the time our satellite is due to be launched next year the honourable member's confidence in NASA will be vindicated in view of some of the recent problems it has had with launching satellites. Let me return to my concern about some of the rhetorical gymnastics by members of the National Party on this very important question of satellite communications. Australian Associated Press on 6 March reported that the Opposition was seeking to prevent the Government giving Telecom or anyone else an interest in Aussat; instead, it wished to revert to a policy of private ownership. Since that appears to be the case, I wonder what attitude the Deputy Leader of the National Party plans to adopt with his colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). In a Press statement of 12 July last year the honourable member for Gwydir stated: I am not concerned by full public ownership of Australia's domestic satellite but would be concerned if the Infrastructure Committee's recommendation to pass control of the satellite system to Telecom was adopted by the Government. I think that is a very reasonable attitude for the Deputy Leader to take, and certainly in the deliberations by the Government while not attributing in any way the decision of the Government to the influence of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the decision of the Government to proceed along that track, I think, certainly represented a reasonable compromise on the whole question of full public ownership as opposed to some degree of private and public ownership. He went on: While the domestic satellite system should complement Telecom's communications network it would be a retrograde step if Telecom became the satellite's controlling body. Again that is a reasonable statement. No one is seriously suggesting, I hope, that the proposal to allow Telecom to have a 25 per cent share of Aussat will give it total control of the satellite. How does that then square with the Opposition's manic obsession with wanting Aussat to become a 49 per cent privately owned company? Why is there a general opposition to Telecom's involvement in satellite communications? As I understand it, there is nothing sacrosanct about Telecom being restricted to terrestrial systems only. Surely we in this country are interested in the question of telecommunications generally, whether they be land based or satellite based. A very interesting commentary appeared in a recent edition of the Australian Financial Review of 29 February. The edition contained this rather thoughtful statement: Giving Telecom a 25 per cent share of Aussat has created a useful alternative perspective for Telecom management . . . If Telecom is looking to improve its investible funds, one method is to generate more profits. A profitable Aussat operation is one way in which Telecom could boost its fund inflow, giving the telecommunications authority a strong direct interest in the commercial success of the satellite operation. I think that was a reasonable statement of attitude. I think Opposition members ought to realise that there are two basic things to be considered. The first is that the proposed 25 per cent shareholding by Telecom in Aussat is an acceptable commercial arrangement to both Telecom and the management of Aussat. I wonder whether the honourable member for Murray has had any discussions recently with the management of Aussat to see what it thinks about this proposal of 25 per cent ownership by Telecom. I think the reality is that the management of Aussat would tell him that it is a reasonable proposition. The second matter to be considered, as my colleague the honourable member for Isaacs said is that failure to pass the satellite legislation may prejudice the opportunity that country people-I am interested in country people-may have in particular to improved telecommunications services. It seems that, despite the utterances, the rhetoric and the shallow statements by the Opposition spokesman on communications the Opposition wishes to delay the legislation for some reason. How does the Opposition reconcile its statement of 9 October last year headed ' Time running out for Aussat' with its present attitude. The honourable member for Murray said: The commercial viability of Aussat and the ability of potential users to plan the orderly introduction of the domestic satellite is at risk because of the delay in Government decisions on vital policy issues. I think those vital policy issues were spelt out very clearly by the Minister for Communications late last year. So if there is any question about delay in vital policy issues it is not a consideration for this Government. Those policy decisions have been made. This legislation is the enshrinement of those policy decisions. If the Opposition insists in putting across some of these ridiculous amendments I do not think it is serious about trying to hurry through any decisions on the satellite. There is nothing wrong at all with the proposition that Telecom should be involved with land-based and satellite communications systems. It is not the intention of this Government to have competition between the two types of systems. Both systems should complement each other. It is nonsensical to suggest that any other organisation, apart from Telecom, should have access to public switched telephone services or public switched data services. Honourable members should remember the debate on the report of the Davidson inquiry to which I referred earlier. Let us remember the whole principles of cross-subsidisation. Let us not get ourselves involved in anything that will prejudice our national telecommunications services. I have heard National Party members in the past say : 'If we have private banks and private schools, why not private communications services?'. That is their attitude and their mentality. That is the sort of thinking they go along with. The old agrarian socialists say: 'We will capitalise our profits and we will socialise our losses'. They are capitalists when it suits them and they also like to run to the public till when it suits their interests. I think the amendments of the honourable member for Murray should be totally rejected for the nonsense they are.The Bills are not designed to fragment the national telecommunications service. If the Opposition has its way with these amendments that will be the reality. They represent an opportunity, I believe, for tremendous advancement, particularly for country people, in our telecommunications services. For once the Opposition should be positive in its thinking and support the Government's initiatives. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.45) —I wish to speak on the amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1975, the Postal Services Act 1975 and the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946. The Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill are designed to entrench the 25 per cent Telecom Australia interest in the satellite and the operation of our domestic satellite which will be launched in mid-1985, we hope. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) who said how keen the Government was for Telecom to have this holding. However, it is ironical that the Australian Labor Party, in Caucus, held a vote on this matter and it was lost by one vote. Apparently one member from Sydney could not make the vote. Mr Keogh —How do you know? Mr IAN CAMERON —I know all right. I read the newspapers. One member was not there and the vote was 49 to 51. I inform the people of Australia that that is how keen they are. They wanted Telecom to own the whole thing lock stock and barrel. They wanted Telecom to own it 100 per cent. They wanted to nationalise the satellite system before it was even launched.That is how keen they are. Of course, most of them are socialists. That is what the Hawke socialist Government wants. What has happened now? This project will cost $20m. This money would be better spent in installing telephones. Apparently the honourable member for Calare has been to Cunnamulla. I can assure him that people west of Cunnamulla do not have any telephones at all. I do not know what he is going on about. Mr Keogh —They have a crook member too. Mr IAN CAMERON —I can assure the honourable member that they have a good member. It will cost $20m for Telecom to buy into Aussat. I have always argued that this money could be better spent by Telecom at least completing the subscriber trunk dialling installations throughout Australia. Surely Telecom can finish that operation. In the last Budget, the Hawke socialist Government put up Telecom's interest rate which cost approximately $100m. So again it strapped Telecom. I do not know where it will find the $20m. Honourable members will find that in Maranoa the phone services, phone installations and the conversion of phone services to STD will be cut back once again. Instead of the projected completion date being 1990, it will not be completed until 2000 at the rate we are going. Of course, the telecommunications unions did not want Telecom involved in the satellite system at all. They practically went on strike about it. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) has been involved with those unions . Those unions said that involvement in the satellite system would be too expensive. They advised the Government not to get involved at all. Inland Australia has had tremendous problems lately with Telecom with the introduction of Countrywide Calling. Of course, as usual, it has severely discriminated against country people because Telecom is timing local calls in Australia for the first time. Why is Telecom doing this? It is doing it because it needs more revenue. Why does it need more revenue? It needs more revenue to buy into the satellite system. How else will the Government collect the revenue other than by hitting the country people. Mr Duffy —You did not do badly out of Countrywide Calling. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Minister knows that that is what has happened. I congratulate the Minister and Telecom on some of the changes they have made to Countrywide Calling. There are still plenty of anomalies throughout Australia. Country people are being discriminated against because we are the only people expected to pay for a telephone. It still costs us $600 to have an STD phone installed and we are now having our local calls timed. People living in Canberra , Sydney or Melbourne do not have their local calls timed. People in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne can ring across the city for as long as they like. I remind the House, as have other speakers, that it was the Fraser Government which set the satellite program in motion. Of course we have always been very interested in this program. Country members have been particularly interested because of initial pressure from rural Australia concerning the lack of communications to get this satellite and because they could see that the new technology through the satellite would rapidly bring them into the twentieth century. Most people who live in inland Australia, firstly, do not have telephones and, secondly, do not have television. A lot of people do not have Australian Broadcasting Corporation stations or commercial television. We have great hopes for the satellite. It will certainly bring inland Australia into the twenty-first century. We are looking forward to its launch but we oppose the principle of Telecom being involved. In the early days of discussions about the satellite, all committees accepted that Telecom was opposed to the system. Telecom did not want the system because it feared the competition from it. I wish the hell that we had left it out of it and given it a bit of competition because, surely to goodness, these corporations need a bit of competition. Telecom has an absolute monopoly on telephones in Australia. Of course, telephone services will be improved. Approximately 100 channels will be available for very isolated communities to receive a telephone service. No doubt , they will be happy to have a telephone for the first time in their lives. As a previous speaker said, Aussat will operate as a commercial, taxpaying enterprise. It is interesting that such a proposition should come from the socialists on the other side of the House. They seem to be happy to let Aussat continue in this way. Telecom does not pay tax, yet the Government will let Aussat operate as a commercial enterprise which will have to pay tax. Of course it can be wound up only by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. One wonders whether it is good for competition that an action of this Parliament is the only way it can be wound up, but that provision is in the Bill. Mr Saunderson —Where would you like it done? Mr IAN CAMERON —On the one hand, the Government wants it to operate commercially and pay tax-in other words, it has to survive out there in the wide commercial world-yet, on the other hand, the only way it can be wound up is through this Parliament. The Government cannot have its cake and eat it too. I would leave it to the commercial world and if it does not survive it does not survive. However, I believe it will survive and that it will be a tremendous success. All sorts of modes will be available on the satellite, including telephone, television and all sorts of new ways of transmitting documents and things. Big businesses will get involved because it will help them keep up to date, not just within Australia but world wide. At the push of a button we will be able to contact people throughout the world, not just through the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service but through other satellites. They are even looking at bouncing signals from one satellite to another, so we will have a rapid connect-up right around the world. It will be a great help to our defence capabilities and to our air navigation, and other countries will be involved. We hope that eventually Papua New Guinea will buy in to the satellite. This will give it television in most parts of the country I suppose for the first time, particularly in the highland region. The signals, being in a straight beam, are able to go directly into certain areas. The benefits do not apply only to inland Australia but also many people living even in Sydney do not get a very good signal. At least they will be able to get the Australian Broadcasting Corporation HACBSS direct 30-watt transponder signal. I know that in lots of country towns if people live behind wheat silos it is very difficult to receive television signals, because they are direct line of sight signals. Mr Milton —You do not get good ones in the Dandenong Ranges, either. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is right; there are none around the Dandenongs. Of course those signals will be available when the satellite goes up. That is the good thing about it. Just remember that it was the Fraser Government that implemented this system. I am pleased to see the Labor Government carrying it on, but I must say many members of the Australian Labor Party wanted to do away with it completely, as did the unions. They are lucky that bloke did not come up from Sydney, otherwise they might not have had a satellite at all. I was disappointed in the decision of the Government concerning big television networks because it seems they will get the use of the signals on the second satellite. Unfortunately, those signals will not be in the spot beam mode; they will be in the spread mode, straight across Australia. They will be weakened down to approximately 12 watts, and people in inland Australia will not be able to receive a direct commercial signal. This was our hope, because a tremendous area of Australia does not receive any commercial television signals. Many areas do get ABC television because the ABC, and the taxpayers of Australia, have spent a lot of money putting the Corporation's signals into isolated Australia. Of course the people in those areas were looking forward to a commercial signal but they will not get one. That cannot really happen because the signal will be coded and the commercial stations will receive the signal and then rebroadcast it. There is a move afoot to extend some of these commercial networks. That is a good move and I support it. I congratulate the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for getting involved in that because many areas certainly need a commercial channel. It is a great pity that the Government did not go ahead with the spot beam configuration. I have always supported TV Australia's concept of receiving signals and rebroadcasting them on commercial channels. Of course the Government's great white leader, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), promised in his rural policy speech at Griffith that if Labor came to office TV Australia, or a company along those lines, would be allowed to give people in rural Australia a commercial signal. Of course we know what his promises before the election were worth; none of them have been kept. This is one of the many that have been broken. The HACBSS system was initially set up to help people in inland areas. It will be very useful for education processes, and it is one system that the Opposition supports. It will be on the 30-watt beam and people will be able to erect a metre or a metre and a half dish and receive the signal. The sad part about it is that they cannot use the 30-watt signal for commercial television signals. I have always argued that the commercial stations could have used the 12-watt transponders to do the same job that they will use the 30-watt transponders from the satellite to do. The signal could have been sent around Australia and received in dishes using 12-watt power without the beam having to be spread through a 30-watt transponder. As I have mentioned, direct broadcasting is not to be allowed. Signals will be decoded so it will be impossible for people who go to the cost of installing a dish, which will cost them $1,000 or better, to receive anything but ABC signals. The HACBSS system has four 30-watt transponders and two radio channels. I guess the two radio channels will be used for some form of FM or AM broadcasts from the ABC. I ask the Minister to keep in mind a matter I have raised before. If the HACBSS and Aussat satellite systems prove as successful as I think they will, we ought to be in a position to launch the third satellite fairly quickly to pick up the amount of business that we hope will be involved. At least that should allow a commercial television signal to be made available to people who live in the inland. The honourable member for Calare mentioned that I made a statement about the satellite launch. If the space shuttle did not launch the satellite the Ariane rocket would have to, otherwise we would have to walk it up. Unfortunately for the shuttle and the United States space administration, two satellites have been lost in space. All I can say is that at least it happened to somebody else and not to us. It could have been our satellites that went astray. When the Minister replies to the debate on this Bill I would like an assurance from him that the insurance on our satellites will be sufficient to cover the loss of both when they are launched. It seems that the Americans are not infallible, and that the satellites could just drift off into space. I congratulate the Minister on the support he has given to inland Australia by attempting to have some national sporting events televised. I have raised this before but I believe it needs mentioning again. He made a very strong statement on this matter to the commercial television stations, and I fully support him in this cause. Many people in inland Australia get only the ABC. When the ABC is hamstrung with funds and obviously cannot compete with the commercial stations in the televising of sporting events such as the Melbourne Cup, it is important for us to see to it that such events are broadcast through the ABC system when it is the only one available. I have given support to the Opposition's amendments, but I would like to pick up a news release from the Minister for Communications and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I support a lot of the work we do for Aborigines but I am totally opposed to the racist way in which we do things specially for Aborigines and do not worry about the white people in those communities. This Press statement says that the Government has set up a special committee to look into broadcasting facilities for Aborigines and it is to report by 31 May. I say to the Labor Government, to this Hawke socialist Government, that if it is good enough for it to look at the problems of broadcasting for Aborigines in inland Australia it ought to include us all. The Press release states: They said it was estimated that 30,000 Aborigines did not have access to television and as things stood it could be 1990 before many Aboriginal communities had a decent telephone service. That applies to all people in inland Australia, not just Aborigines. Hundreds of white and black communities throughout Australia do not have telephone services. Those communities are continually told by Telecom that they will not have a service until 1990 or beyond. The way things are going it will be beyond 1990. The news release continues: Yet in other parts of the nation basic telephone, radio and television services were taken for granted by most Australians . . . That is what honourable members whose electorates comprise rural areas have been arguing for years. People who live in Sydney and Melbourne take the telephone service for granted. Yet people who live in inland Australia still do not have telephones and they still cannot receive radio broadcasts. They still cannot receive ABC or commercial television. Yet the Government has set up a task force to inquire into services for Aborigines. The news release goes on: 'The Government believes the time is well overdue . . . I agree; so do I- when these anomalies should be overcome and basic communications facilities made available to all Australians who want them,' the Ministers said. The Act says that Telecom must provide a telephone service for all. Have not all honourable members been arguing for years that people should have that service? I suggest to the Minister that if it is good enough for special investigations to be made and special funding to be provided for Aboriginal people, it is good enough for the rest of us who live in those areas also. I represent all Australians in my electorate. I do not want to represent separately Aborigines or English speaking Australians, whatever one likes to call them. I just call them people. I hope that when the task force is established it will look at all communications services, not just Aboriginal services, when it visits the various communities. The task force must consider all those areas which are lagging behind and which are not receiving telephone and commercial and ABC television services. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendments. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(12.03) —In my remarks I intend to comment on what has been said earlier. Therefore by definition it will be relevant, I hope, to the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill. I have the highest regard for the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). He is a very congenial fellow. He could be described, as people have come to expect of members of the National Party of Australia, as an honest fool. I say that completely without malice. He is a very congenial fellow and I do enjoy his company. I want to address myself to a couple of remarks which he made. Mr Ian Cameron —I take a point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the word 'fool'. Otherwise I might think the same about the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I ask the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to withdraw the remark. Mr CAMPBELL —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not see how I can withdraw the remark without reflecting on the honourable member's honesty. I seek your guidance. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I insist on a withdrawal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie should withdraw. Mr CAMPBELL —I am happy to withdraw the remark as long as the honourable member understands the full import of my withdrawal. Mr Ian Cameron —Yes, I do. Mr CAMPBELL —The honourable member praised the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, for endeavouring to get more sports events transmitted to country areas. I support him. I think the Minister has done a tremendous job. What is needed of course, is legislation to prohibit monopoly broadcasting. I would like to think that the National Party would join us in that path one day. The honourable member also said that he supported TV Australia in its endeavours to provide television services to the people in isolated Australia. I must correct him on that aspect, and it goes to the nub of what I have said often in this place; that is, the National Party and the Opposition generally do not understand how the free enterprise system works. TV Australia at no stage proposed to give television to rural Australia; it proposed to charge people for it. I object very strongly to people whom I represent having to pay for a service which other people receive free or, at the very worst, the charge is encapsulated in the cost of advertising. Let us get it quite clear that TV Australia was never going to do that. I believe it is important to look at the history of this legislation and at the whole of the debate on the satellite system. I attended a seminar in Perth which was sponsored by the University of Western Australia. That seminar discussed the proposal to launch a satellite. I think it would be true to say that at that seminar Telecom Australia was not enthusiastic about launching a satellite. It is also true to say that Telecom was the only organisation at that function which had correct facts and figures. The figures which were put by Telecom at that conference in 1980 were the prices that rule today. In 1980 Telecom knew what the real costs would be. The costs were stated at that time and they were correct. Unfortunately, the satellite has been a political football. It was a football designed to confuse and fool country people. Elaborate claims were made about the satellite. I remember members of the previous Government going out to their electorates and telling people that they would get things such as up and down television links, that they would be able to communicate with the School of the Air on the satellite and that those facilities would be readily available in a small dish. The Minister of the day-Minister Staley, who was a most irresponsible Minister-formulated what was called Staley's law. That law stated in short that the price of receiving a satellite signal would vary inversely proportionately to the distance he was from Canberra when he made a statement. If he went to Meekatharra and promised that it would cost $800 he would return to Canberra and say that it would cost perhaps $8,000. That is the standard of debate and the standard of honesty which we had when the Opposition was in government. I attended a seminar held in Alice Springs which the honourable member for O' Connor (Mr Tuckey) also attended. It was a seminar called by the Northern Territory Government to try to embarrass the Hawke Government. It was clearly a device to try to capitalise on negotiations that were then taking place. Unfortunately for the Northern Territory Government the very able Minister, the Minister for Communications, completely aborted the purpose of that conference because he announced that the satellite would fly. It is entirely the responsibility of the Minister that that satellite is flying. The Minister at the table made the decision. The decision was not made by the previous Government; it was made by Minister Duffy. It was a courageous decision. I commend him for it and I supported him in it. At that seminar in Alice Springs the honourable member for O'Connor tried to stop me speaking, although I represent almost a third of Australia and certainly the most remote areas of Australia. On the subject of remoteness, I make no apology for the fact that, like Banjo Paterson, I do see something of a hero in the man from furthest out. These days, since certain legislation has been passed , I guess I should include 'or woman' in that remark. However, the areas which are represented by many members of the National Party in this House would be more aptly described as outer suburban. We should not lose sight of that point. I am prepared to exclude the honourable member for Maranoa from that remark. The Northern Territory Government, having completely lost its motive for the seminar at Alice Springs-it was completely undermined at the stroke of the Minister's pen-demanded full Aussat Pty Ltd ownership of the satellite. I do not know what that did for rural people in Australia. I do not know what business it was of the Northern Territory Government. It had not occurred to me that it was a spokesman or a marketer for Aussat. The motion was carried. It was a very stacked audience at that conference, but the motion was not carried by a particularly big margin. It is quite clear that the decision taken by the conference was entirely politically motivated and bore no relevance whatsoever to the needs or aspirations of country people. I know what services are like in the country. I have an electorate in which it is very hard to get television services and in which it is impossible to get radio services other than short wave services. Yet we have the ridiculous situation of Channel O-28, ethnic television, which was one of Mr Fraser's babies. In my opinion, that is a device designed to transfer services from the needy of this country to the middle class. It is a service which I can assure people is not watched by the ethnic majority; it watches what is commercially available. That ought to be considered by Opposition members. We have heard various Opposition members say: 'Let Telecom get on with the business of providing what it is good at, telephones'. Telecom is good at providing telephones. Let us face this fact. The honourable member for O'Connor said that maybe there is some evidence of a cross-subsidy. A massive cross- subsidy is applied by Telecom and that cross-subsidy goes to country users. It is a cross-subsidy in excess of $280m. On the property which I shared with my brother, and which he now has, he recently got a phone, under a Labor Government . I think he pays rent of $500 a year on that phone. He is happy to pay that. Until recently he could not have that service. If we talk about services provided to people in the bush, let us be very clear. Because of the policy of the previous Government that Telecom had to fund its expansions out of profits, it was hamstrung. That is not the way the private sector works; yet the Opposition, which purports to be the expert on free enterprise, tried to impose those strictures on this national organisation. I was also rather intrigued by what was said by the honourable member for O' Connor, and to some extent the honourable member for Maranoa, about leaks from the Labor Party Caucus. It is true that on occasions the Labor Party Caucus does leak. I am glad that we have now identified the source of the leaks. I also say that the leaks are usually very inaccurate and garbled. Having identified the source, we can clearly see why. I am one of those who do not agree with the position of my Government on this issue. I very strongly supported 100 per cent Telecom ownership. I can tell the honourable member for Maranoa that, had that vote been lost by one vote, I would feel particularly guilty because I was absent on the day the vote was taken. Mr Ian Cameron —Deliberately, or by accident. Mr CAMPBELL —That is not true. I wanted Telecom ownership because I know that country people in remote areas of Australia benefit from that situation. Telecom provides the services. Telecom bridges that great communications void that exists in this country. I am concerned today that there has been so much talk, in my view nonsensical talk, about multiculturalism. Our culture is still basically an Anglo-Celtic culture. The great division occurring in this country is the division between rural and city dwellers. The dichotomy is growing between the main culture that exists in the cities and that which exists in the country. I am also sad to say that I believe the previous Government was most responsible for the growth of this very dangerous division in the community. Let us have no more common abuse of Telecom. The honourable member for O'Connor talked about the wicked Telecom union. Let us look at the situation of the wicked Telecom union. We had industrial trouble from this union in the years 1976, 1977 and 1978. I had discussions with the top management of Telecom and was told unequivocally that that industrial trouble was forced on Telecom by the actions of the previous Government. It is interesting to note that since 1913 that union has been free of industrial trouble. The main spate of that industrial trouble occurred during the life of the previous Government. That will be verified. Senior Telecom people have told me this. It was done for the most tawdry political reasons. The National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia know that they can always get a few votes by banging on the old anti-union drum. Mr McGauran —Who told you? You are bluffing. Mr CAMPBELL —I certainly would not tell the honourable member for Gippsland because in the usual course of events governments change and I would not want those people to be hounded by members opposite if they get back into government because they are the sorts of people who would conduct witch-hunts. Opposition members can check for themselves. Telecom management will tell Opposition members that off the record just as I was told that off the record. I suspect the Opposition already knows that anyway. The assertion is that this is a wicked union. The truth is that that union is industrially very responsible, particularly if compared with the industrial record of some of the other powerful unions in this country. I refer honourable members particularly to the Australian Medical Association and its spate of industrial cannibalism. That is all it can be described as. There are a couple of other points I wish to make on a rather more parochial note. The honourable member for O'Connor talked about the very poor standard of television in his electorate. I must defend the situation in his electorate because a large part of his electorate is served by Golden West Network Ltd. I see a lot of rural television as I move around this country. The Golden West Network, in my opinion, provides a service second to none in Australia, and better than most capital city stations. It is an excellent station. I am rather appalled that the honourable member for O'Connor did not recognise that. During his speech he referred to the poor standard in his electorate. There is no doubt that there is a very poor standard in some areas of his electorate. Overwhelmingly, the standard is poor in my electorate and I have taken up with the Minister the problems of the VEW Colour Network in Kalgoorlie, which is a disgrace and a shambles. Were the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal not such a toothless tiger, something would have been done about it many years ago. Mr McGauran —Don't they support you? Mr CAMPBELL —I do not need their support. Mr McGauran —You don't get it, by the sound of it. Mr CAMPBELL —Nobody watches the station; that is the reason. I will make another couple of points that I have often tried to make in this House about the failure of Opposition members to understand how the private sector works. I do not presume to have a Holmes a' Courtian view of how it works or its intricacies, but I know the basics and I know that having 51 per cent of a company does not necessarily give one control. The Opposition obviously does not realise that. There is a whole host of other factors. The control of the board is often not in relation to the shareholding. In any case, in an organisation with a very high technical component, the technical component can often have de facto control. I made another note to expose the Opposition's lack of understanding. The honourable member for O'Connor lamented that the public ought to be asked and that nobody ever asks the public what it wants. The hard, sordid, economic, commercial, free enterprise truth is that if the service is not viable, there will be no service. What the research is for, what the hearings are for, is to determine whether it will be economically viable to give the public what it wants. Only when that factor is determined can the public really be involved. If that point is not reached, there will be nothing. This is self-evident and I feel embarrassed at times having to restress these things in this House but it is quite apparent and abundantly clear that those opposite do not know how the free enterprise system works. Why would they? In the past their solution was that if something was not making a profit, prop it up with a government handout; that is, the old rural socialist view. As I have pointed out so often in the House, we are really all socialists in this House now. On this side we have democratic socialism, which I am very proud of and would proclaim unhesitatingly . On the Opposition side, of course, there are the rural socialists and the inevitable national socialists. Mr McGauran —What is a national socialist? Mr CAMPBELL —The honourable member will be betraying that he is of a very young age if he does not know that. This Bill locks up the ownership of this organisation so that it cannot be disbanded except by an Act of both Houses of Parliament. I support this legislation very strongly although I fear it will not be enough. When this organisation becomes profitable-I think it will be some time because very important social demands will be made on it and will work against its profitability; social demands which Opposition members will support- attempts will be made to sell it off. The Opposition has the idea that if the public sector makes a profit, it has to sell it off to fulfil its barren, sterile ideology. It cannot accept that the public sector can be profitable or successful. That destroys its philosophy. That is how the Opposition operates. Although I support the amendments, I fear that they will not be enough to protect Aussat from the sticky fingers of the people the Opposition supports. The Bill also gives this entity the power to form associations with others. That is a very good provision, one which I wholeheartedly support, and which is commonsense. The legislation also allows Australia Post to have access. In this way it can maintain and upgrade facilities when advances in electronics become available. That is another very good provision. One of the things I find in my electorate is that there is constant pressure on Telecom to perform. It does this by cutting down on services in the more marginal areas. I do not agree with this. I believe that those areas deserve a service. Australia Post is caught on that very cleft stick where it has to operate on a commercial basis while at the same time it is demanded of it that it provide service to the very remote areas of Australia. I am inundated with letters from local government organisations lamenting the constraints put on Australia Post. The same organisations send me mail demanding that we have more free enterprise and more initiative. This very much amuses me. It is another case of the inability to think things through rationally. It is a pity that I am out of time as I wanted to mention many other things. In the remaining 30 seconds available to me, I want to deal with a letter from a constituent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(12.22) —I will not delay the House for very long, but I rise to support the intent of the Satellite Communications Bill. I support, in particular, the amendments moved by my colleague, the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). As many speakers have said, Australia has experienced satellite communications with an international hookup as far back as 1966 when we saw the use of the Intelsat series. We also recognise that the history of the communications satellite has been one of diverse and sometimes conflicting activity. In the early stages we saw early rivalry between the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and Australia Post which, I believe, set this particular project back a long way. We saw little co-operation at that time between those two organisations. There is also very strong evidence that Telecom Australia ignored the potential of satellite technology. Between 1972 and 1977 there were 31 reports both within and without the Telecom organisation. The final report in 1977, after an intensive study by that body, concluded that a satellite system was not justified in cost benefit terms in the near future. Telecom may well have been right. I believe both the present Government and the past Government may in fact be thankful that Telecom was so cautious and had the expertise at that time to produce these reports and to ensure that when the satellite is launched it will serve the purpose for which it is designed. It was our Government that took an enthusiastic and informed interest in new technology. In fact, the activity of the former Government has now ensured that this satellite will be launched. There was early caution shown by many government departments at that time, particularly the Department of Finance. Probably once again we can be thankful for the delays as we have had massive and dynamic advances in technology since that time. These will probably all now be to the nation's advantage. Some of the comments that we have heard from the other side today have had absolutely nothing to do with the technology of the satellite. In fact it can be put down as absolute nonsense. The low level of this very important debate has really concerned me. I do not include the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in this because he has performed extremely well in his portfolio. We give him credit for the fact that we are today debating this Bill. But most Government members have spent all their time trying to justify the ownership decision as it relates to having 25 per cent of the satellite held by Telecom. Of course, we have had explained to us the real reason the Government has been blackmailed by the unions and why it has come to this decision. I do not blame the unions. Of course, they should seek to expand their base, their influence and their control . But the Government should have shown a little more strength in this ownership decision and determined not what is best for the unions, but what is best for the consumer and the nation. Under no circumstances do I want to underplay Telecom's role in our community. Coming from a rural electorate, I am very appreciative of the services of Telecom and Australia Post. In the last decade, in particular, I believe their operations have been very effective. Their personal relationship with the electorate has improved enormously to the advancement of both the consumer and the organisations. But I do not believe that Telecom should be involved in this project. The main reason for this belief is that already Telecom is under severe financial restrictions. It does not need to be involved in this as it will only place Telecom in further difficulties. I refer to just a couple of issues. I have here a letter that I received yesterday from some of my constituents who are developing a very large almond, citrus and vine-growing project in the north -western corner of Victoria. It is a very isolated region to which telephones were provided only a few years ago. The letter reads: About 7 years ago after protracted negotiations residents in this area were able to be connected to the nations phone system, albeit a second class connexion. In the period since then about 20 connexions have been made on what I think is a 2PR cable, so that at peak time the phone system overloads, not uncommon in many areas but not good on a new system. Further during times of high temperature the exchange equipment said by Telecom staff to be up to 30 years old and second hand, fails to operate inside the iron huts without airconditioning. About 2 or 3 years ago a new underground cable was laid in part to replace an overhead system. The cable was not white ant proof even though the soils are infested with white ants. The 1983 allocation of 180 metres of white ant proof cable to repair the 10 kilometres section of cable that is periodically eaten seems to typify our problem. Because our phone lines are longer than the equipment can effectively handle the level of performance is marginal at best. New equipment like telex and digital phones are not able to be operated on our 'long line' equipment. This industry was encouraged by government to expand into this area. We have only 20 connections in the area, but ones that serve a very viable and very productive almond industry that is expanding. I think it deserves the sort of system that Telecom is able to supply throughout most areas of Australia, but which it has difficulty in supplying to some of our remote areas because of restrictions on finance and, therefore, on equipment. The other issue I refer to only typifies this situation. I refer to public telephone facilities. When people, as they do from time to time in my area and no doubt in every other member's area, require a new public telephone facility they are told that there is only a certain allocation of public telephone boxes. If one needs public telephone facilities in a new area-if that community desires a public telephone facility-the member has to come up with an option of shifting a phone box from another community to meet the needs of that new community. Once again, I make no criticism of Telecom, but I believe that by participating in the ownership of this satellite it will only create greater demands on resources . This will be to the disadvantage of people in the telephone network which is the area in which Telecom is experienced and has the capacity to perform well. I compliment the Minister on some of the statements he has made in relation to representations from people in remote and rural areas in an endeavour to bring national sport and sporting competitions to those regions. As the shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation I am continually being contacted in relation to the disadvantage people in our rural areas suffer from not being able to see national and international sporting competitions which are taken for granted by people in our urban communities. I only hope that not just through the satellite but through other means the Minister will continue with his negotiations in an endeavour to ensure that sport is brought to our rural as well as our urban consumers. I support the amendments moved by my colleague the honourable member for Murray , and in particular the amendment which seeks to add words to clause 8 of the Satellite Communications Bill. I can see no reason why the Government would not wish to add the words which are included in the proposed amendment to clause 8, which refers to the obligations of directors of Aussat. The three obligations to meet the requirements for space satellite facilities stated in the Bill are: . . . for the purpose of the provision and maintenance of air navigation facilities and related safety services; (b) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of the provision by the Corporation of television and broadcasting services to remote communities and dwellings; and (c) of the Commission for the purpose of the provision of telephonic services in remote areas and of emergency services. I am sure that if the Minister were to look at our amendments as moved by my colleague he would have no hesitation in adding to clause 8(1): (d) of a commercial television service for people in remote communities and dwellings in Australia; and (e) of a commercial broadcasting service for people in remote communities and dwellings in Australia. As I have said, I support the main thrust of the Bill. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the Bill would provide and enhance broadcasting and telecommunications facilities for the provision of services that would not otherwise have been possible and which would have been very expensive. This means that distance will no longer be an inhibiting factor in bringing new information and entertainment to all Australians, no matter where they live. In particular it will bring to those people who live in more remote and outback regions of Australia telecommunications services either which they have not had or to which they have had very limited access. I support the Bill but I believe that the Government should note the amendments and include them in this Bill. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(12.34) —The launching of Australia's domestic satellite system in about 18 months' time will usher in a new era in communications for all Australians, particularly for the people living in remote areas such as the Northern Territory. The satellite will mean that residents of Darwin can look forward to a wider choice of radio, Australian Broadcasting Corporation television and commercial television programs. In towns like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine the residents will be able to see commercial television, which they cannot see at present. They will also have access to a wider choice of ABC television and radio programs. It is in the outback where the satellite will have its most dramatic impact. In Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine, which I have already mentioned, the residents have access to some television and radio services, but at places such as Borroloola, Lajamanu and Yulara in the Northern Territory the residents have nothing at all. With the introduction of the satellite they will have access to ABC television, commercial television and radio. So the Aussat service will mean a great deal to the people of the Northern Territory in getting broadcast services such as television and radio. Many honourable members will have heard of the results of a survey of the needs of the people in the bush for communication services. These people have expressed three basic priorities, and those priorities are: A telephone, a telephone that works, and a telephone that works all the time. I have visited dozens and dozens of remote communities in the Northern Territory, where it is not uncommon to wait for up to five hours to get a call through on the single radio telephone available. I regret that the satellite will not do much for these people. The previous Government, which did not understand the satellite system, and Aussat Pty Ltd, which does understand it, have unfortunately built up a very false expectation in remote areas that people would get telephone services from the satellite when it is launched in 1985. The sad fact is that Aussat will not do that and these people will have to wait until about 1990 to get subscriber trunk dialling telephone services through Telecom's digital radio concentration system. I wish to put to rest the nonsense being talked by the Opposition about the allocation of money to Aussat from the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the effect this will have on Telecom's ability to provide telephone services in the bush. Telecom's remote area service involves an expenditure of $400m over the next five to six years. We are talking about Telecom contributing about $20m to $30m towards Aussat. When one compares those two figures one will see that Telecom's contribution towards Aussat will have a very minimal effect on Telecom 's ability to deliver services and telephones to people in remote areas. I am pleased that the remote area program is under way and that the people in remote areas will get telephones at least by 1990. That will be some four or five years after they get television and radio services. I will tell honourable members why that situation arose. It occurred firstly because the previous Government just did not understand the satellite system. It did not understand the satellite system's capacities and that it could not realistically and economically be used to provide telephones. Secondly, while the previous Government was in charge of this country it persecuted Telecom. It bled Telecom dry and ran it into the ground. If that Government had shown any real concern for the people in the bush and for their need for telephones it would have got Telecom's remote area program off the ground eight years ago instead of having to wait until now and face a situation in which people will not get telephones until 1990 and television and radio until 1985-86. It is the height of hyprocrisy for honourable members from the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia to come in here today and claim that they have been the saviours in the communications field. They dilly-dallied all the way through most of the important decisions that had to be made on both Telecom providing telephones to people in the bush and the satellite system. While Aussat will not do much for telephones, it will assist in some other important areas. I have already mentioned television and radio. The School of the Air is an important area in which Aussat will assist. I am pleased to learn that the Queensland Government will conduct a trial use of the satellite in January 1986 to deliver education services, including the School of the Air, at Mt Isa. There are many School of the Air students in the Northern Territory, and I am not aware of any similar trial by the Northern Territory Government. I hope that it will follow the Queensland Government's lead and conduct such a trial. The trial, I understand, will involve a combination of Aussat's broadcast facilities and Telecom's telephone services. Before I move away from the important areas, I mention that of sport. A number of speakers have mentioned that, as well as the statement the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) made last year when he sounded a warning to television stations that they should take into account their responsibility to make sure that national sporting events get national coverage and not just coverage in the south-east corner. I am pleased to learn that the New South Wales Rugby Football League and the ABC have heeded that warning. This year the New South Wales Rugby Football League will ensure, through the ABC, that direct coverage of the Sydney rugby league is broadcast to all areas of Australia on Saturday afternoons. That is one step, but a small step, and I hope that other sporting organisations and television stations will follow that lead. I turn now to the relationship between Aussat and Telecom. At present Telecom has a monopoly in providing communications facilities in the Australian market. Telecom's monopoly position has its good sides and bad sides for the people in remote areas. Those people who have telephones in remote areas currently pay about the same telephone call rate as people in the south-east corner pay. This is possible because of the cross-subsidisation between Telecom's profitable routes in the south-east corner and the loss routes in remote areas. We have heard a lot from members of the National Party today suggesting, firstly, that we should dissolve Telecom and then, in the same breath, that we should continue the cross-subsidisation. Mr Fisher —I rise on a point of order. The statement that Telecom should be abolished has never been made. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr REEVES —I would like to see honourable members opposite face their electors and explain the substantial increase in telephone charges should the cross- subsidisation presently offered by Telecom be terminated. Mr Lloyd —I rise on a point of order. The National Party has never said that the cross-subsidy should be removed. It is just as much for the metropolitan areas as for rural people. Mr REEVES —It seems to me that honourable members opposite want to have their cake and eat it too. In the United States of America a deregulation process is taking place, one which I think should serve as a warning to those in the National Party and the Liberal Party who keep attacking Telecom. At present the monopoly of American Telephone and Telegraph Co. is being dissolved. To give honourable members some idea of what is in store if we go down the same path and do that to Telecom, let me quote from an article in Time magazine of 21 November , 1983. It states: Through a complex system of cross subsidies, brilliant in concept but worrisome in practice, one type of phone service has helped pay for another. That kept phone costs down and within almost everyone's reach, but led to price inequities . A phone line in San Francisco that cost Pacific Telephone $29 to install and maintain monthly was billed to the customer at $7. The difference was made up by higher prices for other services, like heavy tolls for calls from one end of the Bay Area to the other. Similar subsidies allowed the dime for a pay phone call in New York City, the true cost is more like 28c. Without some congressional action, a big chunk of the cross-subsidy system is going to disappear, putting fierce upward pressure on bills for local phone services. The article states further: To compensate for the loss, the regional phone firms are going to have to get money from somewhere. That means phone subscribers in general can expect higher prices for almost all aspects of local service, fees that in the past were bundled in packages and, for the most part, never seen by users. Rates will certainly go up for local services like calls to the grocery down the street or to the pharmacy. Higher rates are in store for calls to distant points within states, along with sharp escalations in fees for local directory assistance. That is what would happen if honourable members opposite had their way and wiped out Telecom's monopoly. In the process they would wipe out its cross- subsidisation. I would like them to think about that. The level of cross- subsidisation by Telecom in Australia in 1982-83 was estimated as $320m. If we split that among rural subscribers, excluding those residing in provincial towns , within the rural zones operated by Telecom, it amounts to providing a subsidy of between $300 and $500 per subscriber. That is what is at stake. To return to the cross-subsidisation question, the Bill raises some concerns in relation to Telecom's ability to continue to cross-subsidise. My concern arises from the prospect that Aussat may be able to compete with Telecom in the provision of telephone and data transmission services. It should be noted that Aussat will in effect be competing with Telecom by providing services to broadcasters for television, radio and information distribution. However, this is a low profit, non-growth area of Telecom's operation and it is more profitable, effective and realistic to have Aussat offer this service through the satellite. I would like to observe that the distinction between telephone services and data transmission services will probably disappear in the future with the continuing introduction of digital systems in the communications field. Digital systems allow both telephone and data transmission to be converted into a common digital system. It is widely recognised that data transmission through the digital systems will be a growth area of telecommunications in the next decade or more. Telecom's continuing profit depends on its continuing involvement in this growth area. In turn, its ability to continue to offer cross -subsidisation will depend on its continuing profit. My great concern is that if Aussat is able to compete with Telecom in the provision of telephone services or data transmission services based on either analogue or digital systems, Telecom' s profit base will be adversely affected and, in the longer term, its ability to cross-subsidise. As I have already observed, Aussat has the right to deal directly with broadcasters for television, radio or information distribution systems. However, broadcasting is very different from telephone or data transmission-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for the Northern Territory will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(12.45) —I move: That this House, in condemning the continued occupation of Laos and Cambodia by Vietnam- (1) deplores the repeated incursions by Vietnamese armed forces into Thailand, and (2) expresses- (a) its support for the Thai nation and the Cambodian refugees suffering from the disastrous consequences of the Vietnamese military action; (b) its strong support for the efforts of ASEAN in the United Nations to bring Vietnam to the conference table, and specifically, confirms its support for Resolution Number 37/6 of 28 October 1982 of the United Nations, and (c) concern at the uncertainty created within ASEAN by the Government's determination to attach a high priority to bilateral relations with Vietnam. This notice was put down on the 3 May 1983 at a time when the Vietnamese had crossed the Thai border and there was a serious concern that unless adequate international protests were made to the Vietnamese they would provoke a border conflict which of course would bring great suffering to refugees in the border camps. I remind the House of the concern in Australia in March 1983 when the Vietnamese armed forces attacked a civilian camp at Nong Chan. The population of the camp was estimated by the Government at 20,000. This motion comes to debate in the Parliament one week before the visit of the Vietnamese Foreign Minister. I trust the Government will not just use its numbers to reject this motion. To do so would affirm a position of the Government that it does not support the Thai nation in efforts to deal with cross-border incursions. It would, by so voting, affirm a position to pay scant heed to the plight of the Cambodian refugees. I therefore trust that on part one of the motion the Government will indicate that it is agreed that the Thai nation and the Cambodian refugees do have unqualified support from both sides of the House. It is all the more necessary to take such a position in view of the timing of the Vietnamese Foreign Minister's visit. It is important that the resolve was shown by the Government in April 1983 when it instructed our Ambassador in Hanoi at the time, Mr John McCarthy, to make representations to the Vietnamese Government. I remind the House that in answer to a question on notice the Government confirmed in June that, following reports about cross border incursions by Vietnam into Thailand, the Ambassador on 9 April informed the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry of Australia's concern at the situation on the Thai-Cambodian border. The Ambassador, Mr McCarthy, expressed Australia's condemnation of Vietnamese military incursions into Thai territory and repeated our position, that is the Australian position of long standing, that Australia found no justification or excuse for the incursion into the sovereign territory of Thailand nor for the slaughter of innocent civilians where those things have happened. The fact is that the concern expressed, implicit in part one of this motion, is shared by our Em- bassy in Hanoi, which chose to use firm and descriptive language when protesting this issue last April. The words are indeed strong and attest to the validity of this motion. We told the Vietnamese that we found no justification or excuse for the incursions. Thus, out of the mouths of the Government representatives, the action by Vietnam is totally reprehensible. It is very important that the strength of this position be maintained now and into the future. The value of this debate is that it is a timely reminder to the Vietnamese that the action the Government took in April last draws bi-partisan support of the Australian people. The position of the Government is strengthened and amplified by saying also that there was no justification or excuse for the slaughter of innocent civilians. So the proposition in the first clause of this motion is a proposition which is confirmed by the position the Ambassador took in Hanoi in April and reported to me in answer of 9 June. Therefore I repeat there is no argument for the Government to reject in part one. I should mention again, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the plight of Cambodian refugees continues to be a serious one. The motion, as I have already said, was put down last year but since then there has been no real alleviation of the situation of the Cambodian refugees. In response to representations I received from interested people with first hand knowledge, as the result of their humanitarian work with the refugees, I must express deep concern about Vietnamese actions in Cambodia. These Australian workers among the refugees had received complaints from the refugees about the Vietnamese building a long trench on the Cambodian side of the border. Reports said that the trench was mined, equipped with anti-personnel devices and was deliberately designed to be a hazard to civilians. It appeared to be Vietnam's version of the Berlin Wall. Having received those reports, and representations, I sought information from the Minister as to their validity. In an answer to me in December last year he was able to say that the reported length of the trench varied from 25 kilometres up to hundreds of kilometres. The location of the trench was unclear, but according to the Minister 'locations given cover most of the western section of the border'. The Minister also said that the trench was usually reported to be about six metres wide. Most significantly, the Minister added something I had been unable to confirm. The trench does not appear to be a device to deal with military movement. As the Minister says 'the purpose is believed to be the control of movement of the border population' hence it is the Goverment's position that the trench is designed to prevent the movement of civilians except at the hazard of human life. The Minister said that some reports the Government has mention mines and sharpened stakes placed at the bottom of trenches. Significantly, in answer to my question 'is he able to say whether the trench is hazardous to the movement of civilians'? The Minister stated 'on the basis of the information provided above it would appear that the trenches are hazardous to the movement of civilians'. A fairly cautious estimate, given the belief that the trench is to control the movement of the border population. I have sought further information from the Minister on allegations by Khmer refugees recently arriving at Bam Sangae refugee camp on the border that Vietnam has been conducting a repressive campaign in rural areas in north-western Cambodia. I have asked about the localities subjected to the campaign, and whether accusations that the Vietnamese looted livestock and foodstocks causing an exodus of one entire village of 700 people have any substance. I also asked the Minister what credence he gave reports that villagers have been tortured by having their heads put in plastic bags whilst Vietnamese soldiers use knives and bayonets to sever ears and fingers to extract confessions. Unfortunately the Government is unable to confirm the reports, but Press reports indicated that the reports of repression were coming from north and north-western provinces of Oddor Meanchey, Siem Reap and Ballancheng. The Government is not in a position to confirm or deny these reports and therefore does not give credence to reports of extreme torture, and reserves its position for firmer evidence. It is relevant, I think, to look at the report on this matter from the New York Times. The New York Times correspondent, Mr Colin Campbell, reported that Vietnamese soldiers herded Cambodian civilians into bunkers and threw hand grenades at them, according to Cambodians who said they had been victims or witnesses of such attacks. The statements were made at interviews at a Red Cross hospital and were obviously very believable, according to the representative of the distinguished paper the New York Times. The attacks were said to take place on April 3, 4 and 5 of last year in a camp on the Cambodian side of the border. The correspondent of the New York Times interviewed two women and three children wounded by grenade blasts. A three-year-old boy was also in hospital with the loss of his eye in a grenade blast. The correspondent has seen and interviewed people carrying grenade blast wounds. The New York Times is a very reputable source. Is it not reasonable to accept the refugees' story that the grenades were thrown at them by Vietnamese soldiers? The refugees also claim that the bunker attacks took place at several different times of day during a three-day period. Therefore the injuries viewed by the journalist were received not as the result of casual incidents but as the result of a program of terrorism. It is said that the uniformed Vietnamese soldiers who conducted the attack numbered as few as three of four at some bunkers, and as many as seven at others. They said that the groups of Cambodians instructed to enter the bunkers were as small as three or five and as large as nineteen. It is clear that the Government owes it to itself to pay more attention to these reports. I hope that I receive a response from the Minister on the allegations which are extraordinarily serious obviously to the people concerned and in their implications for any relationships we continue to have with Vietnam. The Government should ask itself whether the reports of a New York Times correspondent should be discounted so heavily as the Minister did in his reply to me. I mention this because the reasons the Minister gave for refusing to co- sponsor the ASEAN resolution were given in the context of disagreements with Thailand over the issue of Vietnamese actions in Cambodia, particularly over the allegation that the Vietnamese were adopting a policy of settlement and of displacing Cambodians. The Heng Samrin Government issued a directive on 9 October 1982 clearing the way for a policy of Vietnamese settlement. The directive was signed by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Mr Chan Si. The Minister confirmed the fact that Vietnamese settlement is taking place pursuant to a Heng Samrin directive. The United States Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Mr John Mongo, stated that the number of Vietnamese settled in Cambodia is at present between 150,000 and 200,000, and as many as one-third of this number, that is, between 50,000 and 70,000, are in the category of new immigrants. The Minister, in his dispute with the Thai Foreign Minister, disagreed with the Thai assessment of Vietnamisation and, for this and other reasons, refused to co-sponsor the Association of South East Asian Nations resolution. The Minister is of the view that there was a Vietnamese community of 500,000 in Cambodia, and the Vietnamese were resettling these people back into their former homes. But he confesses that he cannot assess that the same one- third are now settled. So, the Government betrays itself as having a predisposition to reduce the force of concern about cruelty and resettlement in Vietnamese occupation on the northern and north-western areas of Cambodia. It is clear that his disposition is to give the Vietnamese the benefit of the doubt. I hope that he will pursue these issues in his discussion with Co Thach because his ASEAN colleagues regard them as important, and unresolved as they are at present they make a mockery of treating Vietnam as a nation with a serious interest in contributions to a solution in Cambodia. I refer to clause 2 of the United Nations resolution which is sponsored by ASEAN and now not by Australia. For the record I make specific references to some of the terms. These terms reflect concern about continued fighting and instability in Kampuchea, the instability of the border, and recognise the inalienable right of the Kampuchean people who have sought refuge in neighbouring countries to return safely to their homeland. The resolution, which received the overwhelming support of the General Assembly, called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Kampuchea, the restoration and preservation of its independence, sovereignty and territory integrity, the right of the Kampuchean people to determine their own destiny and commitment by all states to non-interference and non-intervention in the internal affairs of Kampuchea. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government of Vietnam, whose Foreign Minister visits Australia next week, rejects this resolution which, I point out again, reflects the full weight of world opinion. In his visit here, it will become important to bring home to him the concern Australians feel about his country's continued occupation of Cambodia and interference in the internal affairs of that country. We should bring home to him in no uncertain terms that he needs to review that policy if there is to be a durable basis for improved relations with his country . He should be told that foreign aid will be renewed only on a condition that he is prepared to negotiate his position within the framework of the United Nation resolution. This morning I tabled in this House a petition from the Australian Vietnamese community containing approximately 1,000 signatures, and that is a conservative estimate. It called on this Government to cease entertaining offers of aid and demanding release of prisoners of conscience. It called for withdrawal of Vietnam's forces from Kampuchea. I trust the Government's reluctance to condemn Vietnamese aggression in Cambodia will not carry over into a pussyfooting dialogue with the Foreign Minister Co Thach. It should therefore be made clear that Australia is not ready to be manoeuvred into a tolerance of Vietnamese occupation and that Vietnam should move within the UN framework to seek a settlement. If we welsh on that proposition the Government's actions in bringing Co Thach here will remain hollow and the Government's South East Asia policy will continue to be viewed with suspicion throughout the region. I realise that the visit of the Foreign Minister of Vietnam interferes with the efforts of our Foreign Minister is making to get the numbers to lead a third force in the Labor Party. I congratulate him on the success he has already had. He has been peripatetic within Australia as well as outside of it in seeking increasing support for yet another splinter group within the Labor Party. I realise also that it will continue to be difficult for the foreign community to sort out the Government position on any issue which has not been to Cabinet. I do not expect him to be able to overcome the disablities in this situation too easily. There are a number of problems which he has to deal with but I would say to him-we on this side of the House stress it as strongly as we possibly can-that there is a tragic situation in Cambodia. Hundreds of thousands of people have been put at risk and their lives affected and their homelands taken from them. Stories of the most horrific kind come to the surface, and allegations concern actions of a horrific nature perpetrated, it is alleged, by the Vietnamese occupiers of Cambodia. The Foreign Minister and, in fact, this Government owe it to the people of this country, and the people of South East Asia and particularly the people of Cambodia, to fully investigate these matters and if they are shown to be as authentic as people claim them to be our position of abhorrence and rejection of those features of Vietnamese actions should be made pluperfectly clear to the Vietnamese Foreign Minister when he visits Australia next week. To not do so, if the Foreign Minister rejects those propositions, I believe is an example of simply not facing up to the responsibilities of his most important position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is there a seconder to the motion? Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(1.5) —Unusually, let me commence by complimenting the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) for the careful way in which he has drafted the General Business notice before the House . I would also like to compliment him on the commanding way in which he has developed the case before the House, the very impressive sequential development of the points he has made and, I think, the compelling conclusions he has arrived at. There is only one problem, and that is that the notice refers to matters which belong to the past. Events have overtaken it and accordingly most of his argument becomes irrelevant. That is rather tragic because he has invested so much industry and intellectual engagement in this exercise. In the spirit of helpfulness I propose an amendment which I will describe in a few seconds. It is very carefully worded in a way I think will not confront the prejudices of the honourable member. Accordingly, I look forward to him supporting that amendment. I think it arrives at the things which concern him without compromising his well known political dogmatism and biases that guide him so effectively in this place. But first let me establish the case that his notice is somewhat dated. The notice was put to the Parliament on 3 May 1983, so it is nearly 12 months behind events. Mr MacKellar —And you have not brought it on. Mr HAYDEN —Indeed; it is not the fault of the honourable member that the notice has not been brought on for debate. But what is inexcusable is that there is a facility available to all honourable members to alter General Business notices before the Parliament before they come on for debate to make sure that they continue to be relevant, that they continue to be up to date. It is most unfortunate that he has neglected that simple facility. Let me address myself to his notice. The first part deplores the repeated incursions by Vietnamese armed forces into Thailand. We deplored those incursions into Thailand in April last year, and I am pleased that the honourable member has acknowledged that that condemnation took place. It is true that our then Ambassador, Mr McCarthy, in Hanoi expressed very firmly our displeasure and condemnation at that repeated tactic of Vietnam. But Mr McCarthy then, as is the case with all ambassadors, is a servant of the government of the day. He merely enunciated there what I had already enunciated in Jakarta. Accordingly, the Government attended to its responsibilities in that instance. But the fact is that there have been no Vietnamese incursions into Thailand since the first quarter of 1983. So on the first relevant constituent of the notice, it falls apart. It is no longer relevant. The second part has three sub-paragraphs. It expresses its support for the Thai nation and the Cambodian refugees suffering from the disasterous consequences of the Vietnamese military action. That is a sympathy we certainly expressed many times in the past; there are no differences there. As I pointed out before, in 1982-83 a little over $5m of aid to the Thai/Cambodian border and inside Cambodia was provided for refugees and humanitarian purposes. In 1983-84 we provided $4m of similar forms of aid. We share the concern of members of the Opposition. They displayed their concern quite appreciably when in government. There is a consistency of practice arising from similar views on policy between the Liberal National Party when in government and the Labor Party in government. That is scarcely an issue of contention. Paragraph (2)(b) expresses its strong support for the efforts of the Association of South East Asian Nations in the United Nations to bring Vietnam to the conference table and specifically confirms its support for Resolution No. 37/6 of 28 October 1982 of the United Nations. That is just fine; the only problem is that that resolution of October 1982 has been superseded by a resolution of October 1983, and the honourable member did have the grace to refer to it but not the energy to make the appropriate drafting adjustment to his notice. It is a shame because I thought in general terms the case he presented was a quite compelling one, and no one can doubt the conviction behind its presentation. One may quibble about some of the conclusions. One may argue that there may be variations in approaches, but no one could seriously dispute the sincerity of the presentation nor the way in which the argument was presented. The fact, however, is that the relevant resolution is the one of October 1983. We supported that but we did not co-sponsor. We did not co-sponsor because we had reservations about two aspects of it. We expressed those reservations. The resolution proposed acknowledgment of the increasing effectiveness of the coalition with Norodom Sihanouk as President of Democratic Kampuchea. We do not recognise the coalition, and while it is indisputable that the CGDK-the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea-forces, and particularly the DK forces, have come back, the Khmer Rouge component of those forces has regenerated itself with some greater energy-a matter I will deal with in a few seconds-the fact is it is not a clear cut exposition of a new regeneration of something that is revitalised and represents a dramatically divergent path from what has happened before. There is in fact considerable evidence of conflict between the Khmer Rouge on the one hand and the KPNLF-the Khmer Peoples National Liberation Front and the Sihanoukist forces on the other hand-I mean armed conflict; I mean bloody conflict; I mean in certain circumstances it has been murderous conflict. There is also evidence that the KR have in fact recruited forces from the other two components of the CGDK to increase their total strength. So it is not as clear cut as has been presented, and while we have these uncertainties and even concerns we feel some reservations about co-sponsoring as distinct from voting for such a proposal. We had some reservations about the portion of the resolution which referred to demographic changes within Kampuchea, in short, the proposition that a Vietnamisation program has been implemented. Should the evidence amassed in support of this point of view be presented to us and its nature in our assessment is so convincing that it persuades us that the assertion is correct, we will very quickly condemn what has happened. At this moment I think we would express ourselves according to the Scottish court processes where a third decision apart from guilty or not guilty can be presented, and that is 'case not proved'. At this point we feel the case is yet to be proved. We acknowledge that there is a movement of Vietnamese into Kampuchea. To this point it would appear, and I stress 'would appear', that the movement represents people who were there before the Pol Pot period and have returned and people who have performed functions similar to those who were there before that period and have returned to provide those functions. I repeat, if we find evidence that it goes beyond that we will be very quick to express our criticism of that. The third point of the motion expresses concern at the uncertainty created within ASEAN by the Government's determination to attach a high priority to bilateral relations with Vietnam. There is no doubt that we have sought to improve our bilateral relationship with Vietnam; we have sought to improve our bilateral relationship with all countries in the region-the ASEAN bloc of countries on a bilateral basis, and with the ASEAN bloc on a multilateral basis. We sought to do it with the individual countries of Indo-China; we sought to do it with Burma. It is instructive in that respect to note that in spite of some differences which occurred last year, which helped us to clarify our relationship with the ASEAN countries and to establish a better understanding, that that relationship is acknowledged by all member countries of ASEAN, as it is by this country, to be in a much sounder condition because of that. We understand each other better. The more productive symptom of what we are about, I think, is reflected in the fact that this coming week Mr Thach, the Foreign Minister of Vietnam, will visit here for high level talks. He will be followed, hot on his heels, by Mr Siddhi, Foreign Minister for Thailand, the week after, and shortly after that a very high level delegation from the Republic of Burma. These are only some of a succession of visitors, high level visitors from within our region, who are now coming to Australia to engage in this sort of dialogue which we have established , and we want to keep that going. But having said that, I have also to acknowledge that in respect of Vietnam, which seems to be the vexatious concern of the honourable member, our bilateral relationship is still modest. It is modest comparatively, and certainly modest in comparison to the relationship which a number of the countries of ASEAN have with it. Singapore, for instance, has a trading relationship with Vietnam which, according to some accounts, involves trade figures as high as $200m, and certainly an International Monetary Fund report claims that Singapore's imports from Vietnam are of the order of $18m. We should compare that with Australia where bilateral trade runs between $4m and $5m at the present time: It is a relatively modest relationship. The biggest non-communist trading partner Vietnam has bilaterally is Japan. I think a more relevant course is to reflect that in the post-1979 period, the period of high dudgeon, of great moral outrage on the part of the conservatives in Government, trade skyrocketed to in excess of $20m worth of exports from Australia to Vietnam. If we are to talk about building up the bilateral relationship I think that should be kept in mind so that we have some sort of sober balance in addressing ourselves to that issue. There are other aspects of the bilateral relationship I want to go into in a second but because this motion has been overrun by events which apparently had occurred and been reported upon in the daily media without attracting the attention of the honourable member we could not support it, it would be silly for us to vote for a motion proposing that we deplore repeated incursions of Vietnamese armed forces into Thailand. It may happen in the future, we hope it does not, and with time I will address that , but at the moment it is not happening and has not happened since the first quarter of last year. With the indulgence of the honourable member, I move this amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this House- (1) notes the active support the Australian Government has provided for initiatives, including those of the ASEAN countries, designed to bring about a peaceful political solution to the situation in Cambodia in which the sovereign independence and right of self determination of Cambodia is recognised as a central feature, and (2) urges the Government to pursue these initiatives in forthcoming discussions at Canberra with the Foreign Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Mr Nguyen Co Thach and the Thai Foreign Minister, Air-Chief Marshal Siddhi Savetsila'. I want to say only two more things, because time will prevent me from addressing myself to some of the major matters I referred to in passing. The first is, and I repeat, that some substantial and compelling arguments have been presented by the honourable member for Warringah; they are matters that concern us and to which we wish to address ourselves. There is no dispute about that, and we should not seek to manufacture disputes. Synthetic arguments on important matters of the national interest in foreign relations are thoroughly undesirable , and I am sure the honourable member agrees with me. Secondly, it certainly would not be my intention after my experience in this place, not without some guilt myself, to propose to an Opposition that it should endorse, let alone applaud, something a government is doing. So if the honourable member addresses himself to this amendment he will see that it states that this House notes the active support the Australian Government has provided for initiatives and urges the Government to pursue these initiatives. That is, we are not asking the honourable member to support us, to endorse us or to applaud us, we are merely asking the Opposition to note the things which have been happening and to urge the Government to go further along this road. Can there be any genuine dispute? I suggest to the honourable member that he has himself on trial in terms of the genuineness of his credentials. If he votes against that amendment he proposes that an irrelevant, outdated motion should be supported by this Parliament. As a matter of self-respect none of us can do that , but all of us can note and all of us can urge. All of us can note the worthwhileness of pursuing positive initiatives, such as those from ASEAN, and all can urge the further pursuit of those worthwhile goals. I leave the challenge with the honourable member. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(1.20) —I think it is not inappropriate to say at the outset that when the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) started to speak he made the point that this was an outdated motion, but I put it to the Foreign Minister that the fact is that Vietnamese are still in occupation of Kampuchea. The situation has not gone away. I cannot see that in any way this motion, while it might be almost 12 months old, is in any way outdated. I wish to direct my remarks mainly to paragraph (2) (c) of the motion and to refer to the concern and uncertainty created amongst our Association of South East Asian Nations allies by the actions and statements of this Government since last year when it refused to co-sponsor a United Nation's resolution proposed by the ASEAN countries in order to counter the influence of communist Vietnam. The Foreign Minister cannot claim that concern by the ASEAN countries does not still exist. They continue to wonder just what is Australia's policy in this area. We must ask the question: Why is the Government determined to offend old and proven ASEAN allies? It will be to Australia's detriment in the long run if these policies are pursued, because ASEAN will survive without Australian support, but Australia will be the one that is hard pressed without ASEAN support. In short, ASEAN is more important to us than we are to them. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a long history of involvement with the ASEAN countries. We fought side by side in World War II; we fought with them during the Malaysian emergency, in which I took part. We have a five power agreement and we have a fighter squadron at Butterworth and a detachment in Singapore. I note in today's press that that commitment is now under consideration by this Government. The point is that ASEAN is the bulwark against communist expansion in this area. Its members are tried and proven allies of ours. Bilateral negotiations with Vietnam in themselves are good, but at the expense of old alliances they are bad. I have to ask why any sensible person would go out of his way to offend these alliances, to put our alliances at risk in order to pander to a communist country and to pander to the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. It is useless to pretend there are no problems in this relationship. In June 1983 the Foreign Minister challenged ASEAN support for coalition resistance movement in Vietnam. He said there was no future in the ASEAN policy. Australia has been pontificating to ASEAN countries as to where their future might lie. The Foreign Minister's solution, it would appear, was to appeal to the better nature of those involved in the Government in Hanoi and, I put it to the House, what a joke that would be. We might as well appeal to the Foreign Minister to abandon his own leadership ambitions, because the appeal would have the same effect, and that would be absolutely nil. Our Foreign Minister seems to wonder why our ASEAN allies are concerned and cannot really understand, he gives the impression, that their reaction last year was so violent when we refused to co-sponsor that United Nations resolution. Now it might be an academic question for a lot of Australians and perhaps some politicians in this House and maybe the Foreign Minister sitting here in comfort in Australia, but in ASEAN countries it is a matter of survival. I have had the privilege of living in two of those countries, and while I do not pretend to understand in any detail what their feelings are now, it is not very difficult to work out how they regard communists and expansionary communist Vietnam and their own survival. It is not an academic question to them; it is a matter of their future, their total future. They have to live with an expanding communist country on their doorstep. They have done so for 50 years. They ask, with some reason, why Australia would go out of its way to support communist Vietnam, a communist regime with a stated objective of destroying their countries, and ours if they get a chance, and everything that we stand for . Why would anyone support a communist country with 60 infantry divisions in one small country; with something like 40,000 troops in occupation of Kampuchea. The country is creating great difficulties for neighbouring countries and for Thailand. It is giving aid and comfort to the Russians in allowing their forces to establish massive bases in Vietnam-bases for Backfire and Bear bombers which can now cover any part of Australia and bases for submarines which can, in effect, disrupt Australian shipping and our very lifeline, if they wish to. If anyone should think that is an extreme point of view, he should look at the many articles that have been written about the capability of Russian bases in Vietnam. I have one from November, last year, which shows the range of Russian bombers based in Vietnam. A caption underneath a photograph states: 'Soviet Bombers . . . now capable of reaching Australia without refuelling from Vietnam' . We are supporting a country with large Russian bases actively opposed to every interest Australia might develop. That article is written by Denis Warner, and I challenge anyone in this House to doubt his credentials. The Foreign Minister has said, on more than one occasion, that it makes no sense to punish and isolate Vietnam. I put it to the House, Madam Deputy Speaker , that it makes no sense at all for Australians to give aid and comfort to a communist regime in Vietnam, a regime dedicated to the demise of Australia. It certainly makes no sense to do so at the expense of old and proven ASEAN allies. The result of all of this has been severe embarrassment for Australia overseas and the questioning of our faith and our staying power and our value as an ally to ASEAN countries. It caused the postponement of Australian-ASEAN talks last year, in October, scheduled to take place in Sydney. It has caused outspoken comments of various Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers of ASEAN countries to the extent that on one occasion, Dr Mochtar, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, was compelled to say publicly that he was considering sanctions against Australia, and that, in itself, of course, indicates the seriousness with which Indonesia regards our attitude towards Vietnam. It has resulted in the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) having to visit Bangkok to smooth things over and to withdraw Australia from the position into which it was put by the Foreign Minister. We should make no mistake about the differences between the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister in this matter. The Foreign Minister said: I do not accept any policy of isolation and punishment of Vietnam. On 8 December the Prime Minister stated: But as Australia saw it that isolation reflected a choice on Vietnam itself. It was not something imposed on it by ASEAN countries. Madam Deputy Speaker, the answer to all of these conflicts in our foreign policy lies not in muddled thinking about our foreign policy; not in the balancing of any foreign policy priorities; not in the lack of proper advice by the Department of Foreign Affairs: It lies in the domestic problems within this Government and within the Labor Party. It lies in the Foreign Minister's smouldering leadership ambitions, his desire to create a high public profile overseas as distinct from his own leader's profile and a desire to embarrass the Prime Minister. If any evidence is needed of that one has to look only at the formation in the last month or so of what I think is called the Centre Left. I ask the House, and I ask the Foreign Minister: What is our foreign policy? There has been no definitive statement of our foreign policy put down in this House in the last 12 months. We see statements of support for oppressive east African regimes and the suggestion by the Foreign Minister that we should create a naval presence in the Indian Ocean. What a joke! We can hardly maintain a naval presence around our own shores with the rundown in naval capacity in this country. Where will we get ships that will create a naval presence in east Africa? We have had a suggestion from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen ) that Japanese peacekeeping troops become involved in Vietnam. Is the putting of Japanese troops back into South East Asia a substitute for a foreign policy? We have seen in this country support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation, for the African National Congress and for the South West African People's Organisation-terrorist organistaions dedicated to revolution. At the same time this week we did not allow two South African politicans to come and put a point of view. It is all right to support any left wing, terrorist, communist-backed regime, but while Labor politicians visit South Africa it is not on for South African politicians to come here. We will allow the Foreign Minister of Vietnam to come to this country next week; again, this is demonstrated support for communist regimes. I am all in favour of some bilateral negotiations and an improved relationship with Vietnam, but I say again, this should not be done at the expense of proven allies with whom we have had a long and very satisfactory relationship. Our future lies in South East Asia to a large extent, particularly in matters of trade and particularly in matters of defence. Are we to prejudice the future of this country to satisfy the leadership ambitions of one particular man whose desire is to embarrass the Prime Minister and to pander to the left wing of the ALP? Are we to tolerate a foreign policy which gives aid and comfort to enemy countries, which destroys our relationship with our allies and which puts Australia's security at risk? That is not the Australia that I want to see and I know it is not the Australia that most Australians want to see. I appeal to all Australians, and that includes the more sensible members on the opposite side, to see the flaws in our foreign policy and what it is doing to our traditional alliances, and to see the madness of the course we are following. It is a reality. I appeal to Australians to reject that course out of hand. Mr MORRISON(St George)(1.35) —I can well understand the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) not dealing with the resolution moved by his colleague, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). Unfortunately members of the Opposition are suffering from handling an outdated motion, and I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, if they had sought your advice they would have availed themselves of Standing Order No. 139 and redrafted the motion for the occasion. I want to point out, as the honourable member for Warringah pointed out, that in the context of the motion he put forward Australia has already expressed concern about the Vietnamese incursions into Thailand, and this point was made very explicit as the honourable member for Warringah has suggested. Perhaps we should update, for the purposes of this debate, the statements that have been made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this subject. On 22 January 1984 the Foreign Minister took an initiative to influence the Vietnamese , if the thought happened to be in their minds, of undertaking in the dry season any further attacks. He said on 22 January 1984: I said at the time-- that was back in 1983- that we could find no justification or excuse for such actions, that we condemned them, and we have made our views known directly to the Vietnamese through our ambassador in Hanoi. Just to make our position very clear, the Foreign Minister went on: Australia's opposition to Vietnam's continued occupation of Cambodia is well known as is our conviction that a solution to the Cambodian problem will be brought about only through peaceful negotiations-and not through the cynical prolongation of military conflict which has entrenched all sides in a dangerous stalemate. I want to add to this question of the Vietnamese incursions, which we have condemned, the condemnation of the use of violence including campaigns of the resistance coalition. There have been particularly disturbing recent reports of Khmer Rouge hit and run harassment involving the death of Cambodian civilians including children and the burning of private houses. There is, as we all know, and it is regrettable, armed confrontation in Cambodia between the coalition, primarily the Khmer Rouge, and the Vietnamese forces inside Kampuchea. It is also well known that the Khmer Rouge receives military supplies from China through Thailand and that the Khmer Rouge utilises guerrilla camps on the Thai border with Kampuchea; in fact the suggestion has been made of guerrilla camps inside Thailand. As the Foreign Minister has pointed out, we do not believe that a military solution is the answer to the question of Kampuchea. The Foreign Minister has taken initiatives, and this side of the House and, I trust, the Australian people would applaud the initiatives that the Foreign Minister has taken, to seek a peaceful resolution of the problem. We have, and may I suggest the Opposition also has, a very real concern about a military solution that may give success to the Khmer Rouge. For the benefit of the House I might recall some statements that were made by the former Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Fraser. I compliment Mr Fraser firstly for having said what he said, and secondly for having said it where he did. It was after discussions with the Chinese Premier in August 1982. Mr Fraser said: I put the view very strongly that if international support is wanted for the coalition it is going to be much easier to obtain if the figure of Pol Pot is not part of it. There is also a statement made, in fact on the same day, by the then Foreign Minister, Mr Street: The Cambodians do not want the Khmer Rouge back. I think the important issue is the question of the Australian Government's attitude, the attitude of the Australian people, to the coalition and the activities being undertaken by the coalition which only serve to exacerbate the situation in Kampuchea. This does not encourage a peaceful settlement of the issue, and that is what we have all been about. Let me take up some of the points that were raised in the outdated motion put forward by the Opposition. Part of the motion seems to condemn the development of bilateral relations with Vietnam. I ask the honourable member for Warringah and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) whether they condemn bilateral relations with Vietnam. If they do, they have to condemn the bilateral discussions, the bilateral negotiations, that have been taking place between Indonesia and Vietnam, between Thailand and Vietnam and between the Philippines and Vietnam. Let me refer to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Mr Mochtar, who asserted at an ASEAN meeting that Indonesia has a right to pursue consultation and close relations with Vietnam. I will take a moment to illustrate what I think is the view of Indonesia on the subject of relations with Vietnam and the question of Kampuchea. The Indonesians to my knowledge take a much longer term view of the situation than do certain members of the Opposition. They see that within the ASEAN framework, Indonesia wants to reach a settlement of the Kampuchean question in order to pave the way for good relations between ASEAN countries and the Indo-Chinese states. They also have this notion of the zone of peace, friendship and neutrality in the South East Asian region. I believe that is a very sensible way of approaching it . Let me also introduce another element that I should think is of concern to this House and certainly of concern to me. I refer to the possibility of the two great communist powers, the Soviet Union and China, who, according to reports, are seeking some form of rapprochement, trying to sort out the problem of Vietnam and Kampuchea. I think this is a matter of concern to us and to the ASEAN countries. If the future of Vietnam, the future of Kampuchea, is resolved in the rapprochement negotiations that are taking place between China and the Soviet Union I do not think that would be accepted by the ASEAN countries, and I believe that it certainly would not be accepted by Vietnam itself. Continuing bilateral relations have developed between the countries of ASEAN and Vietnam. There was recently a visit to Hanoi by the Commander of the Defence Forces of Indonesia. Last year I had the opportunity of having discussions with the Thai Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. In those discussions, which ranged over the question of Vietnam and Kampuchea, General Kriangsak, who is the Chairman of that Committee, indicated to me his interest in going to Hanoi and to Laos to discuss the differences between the two countries with the Vietnamese. That visit in fact took place in January this year. So, these are the range of the discussions that are going on. But in the motion the Opposition seeks to condemn the role of bilateral discussions in reaching a peaceful settlement, a resolution of the Kampuchean question. Now I am delighted that the Foreign Minister of Vietnam is coming to Australia. He will be followed by the Foreign Minister of Thailand. I am also delighted, speaking as the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, that we will have something of the order of three or four hours discussions with the Foreign Minister of Vietnam, and those honourable members who have any knowledge of the procedures of the joint committee will know that this will be an open debate with discussion of all the issues; there will be no holds barred. I am delighted that the Deputy Chairman of that Committee, the honourable member for Warringah, will certainly have the opportunity to press the points that he considers important in those discussions. The important thing is that it is a complicated problem. There is fighting on both sides, there are Vietnamese attacks and there are coalition attacks on the Vietnamese and the Kampucheans. The point that the Government has consistently made is that this matter cannot be resolved by military means. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It is now 1.45 p.m. In accordance with Standing Order 109 as amended for this session the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Hayden) agreed to: That the time for discussion of notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr MORRISON —I was saying that the important feature of the discussions that are taking place on a bilateral level is that they are far more beneficial to reaching a resolution than is the undertaking of military activities. One of the other features that concerned me about the motion that was moved by the honourable member for Warringah is that the resolution of the United Nations to which he refers does contain in it references to the International Conference on Kampuchea. That meeting was held at the United Nations Headquarters back in July 1981. The big difficulty about that conference was, of course, the United Nations persists, or continues, to recognise the regime of Democratic Kampuchea. I just want to stress the point that neither the Opposition nor the Government support that United Nations position. Certainly over recent times ASEAN has moved away from this notion of the International Conference on Kampuchea. Indeed, when the ASEAN Ministers put forward a statement to the United Nations in September 1983 there was no reference at all to the International Conference on Kampuchea and following the sixteenth ASEAN Ministerial meeting the Ministers made it very clear that what they were concerned about was not the declaration of the International Conference on Kampuchea but rather the elements that were contained in that as the basis for discussion with Vietnam. So regrettably, the motion moved today is outdated. What we have sought to do in moving the amendment which I fully support is to bring the motion up to date. As the Foreign Minister pointed out, with great modesty, the Government is not saying that the Opposition should applaud or congratulate the Government on the activities it has undertaken but merely should note those activities. I believe that the amendment to the motion should be supported because it does provide the very much needed basis to try to solve this problem which is of great concern to Australia, the countries of ASEAN, the people of Kampuchea and the future of peace and stability in the South East Asian region. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(1.48) —In speaking to the amendment moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), I would just like to say that one can only admire the way in which the Minister quietly presented a point of view. If one had not been watching fairly carefully one would have been lulled into a false sense of security and been persuaded by the arguments, which as I understand them, were of the nature that the Opposition could not take exception to the amendment because it did not put the Opposition into a difficult position ; it merely notes what the Government has done and urges the Government to do other things. I compliment him on his method of moving the amendment. But then one, of course, as one always needs to do with the Government, needs to look very carefully at what is the reason behind the change. What do we find is the principal feature of this amendment? Let me quote it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: Now that is very interesting because what are all the words after 'That' that are sought to be omitted. The original motion says: That this House, in condemning the continued occupation of Laos and Cambodia by Vietnam- All of a sudden, just by merely shifting those words around, we have got the Government running away, yet again, from a frank condemnation of the continued occupation of Cambodia and Laos by the Vietnamese. It is very neatly done, very cleverly done, very slickly done. When I listened to the performance by the Foreign Minister I understood why he was wearing that suit today. It was very neat and very slick. It took our attention away from the words that are proposed to be omitted, drew our attention to the-- Mr Hayden —If we move to include them will you accept the amendment? Mr MacKELLAR —No. I go on to the other features of the amendment which are unacceptable. But I am glad for the acknowledgement of the Foreign Minister that he does condemn the occupation. I would like to see the House endorsing that condemnation, and that is what we seek to have, of course. Madam Deputy Speaker, in addition to that very skilful effort to draw our attention away from the terms of the original motion let me deal with some other aspects of the amendment. It is misleading because it says: this House- (1) notes the active support the Australian Government has provided for initiatives including those of the ASEAN countries. Last year the Foreign Minister and the Government took action to withdraw support for co-sponsoring the resolution of ASEAN. With all the furore that followed that-a furore which it must be admitted the Foreign Minister, understandably, sought to downgrade because, of course, that contretemps, that rupturing or potential rupturing of relationships between Australia and its important allies to the north was brought about by his statements, by his moving away from the ASEAN position, by his questioning of ASEAN policies-how can we possibly suggest that this Government actively supported the position of the ASEAN countries or the initiatives of the ASEAN countries? The truth is simply the opposite and if we listen carefully to the statements that the Foreign Minister has made in the intervening period one finds that the Foreign Minister' s actions are greatly at variance with most members of the ASEAN countries and certainly with the stated objectives of the ASEAN position. So it is simply nonsense to suggest that we on this side of the House and the House itself should accept a proposition which suggests that the Australian Government has supported actively the position of the ASEAN countries. The truth is simply different; he knows it. One can travel in any of the ASEAN countries and find a very great scepticism as to the direction of Australian policy and a scepticism as to why we are pursuing those policies. One of the questions these people always ask, and they reduce themselves to very simple questions is: Why is it that the Australian Government seems to be more concerned about securing the support of Vietnam and putting at risk the good relationships with countries of the ASEAN region? Now, a situation developed in the latter part or the second half of last year as a direct result of the Foreign Minister's forays into the ASEAN area and his questioning of the very basis of ASEAN policies. I acknowledge that after a tremendous amount of encouragement to deal with the problem from this side of the House, a solution, an agreeable result, was reached through the intervention of the Prime Minister. But it required the intervention of the Prime Minister before we could get any resolution of the difficulties which confronted the relationship between ASEAN and Australia. I say again that this was a direct result of the efforts of the Foreign Minister. The Foreign Minister and the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) have sought to put the proposition that the motion is out of date. Is it out of date? Again, I believe that the proposition stands up in the circumstances of the day. Firstly, we do condemn the continued occupation of Laos and Cambodia by Vietnam, and I am delighted that the Foreign Minister has acknowledged a condemnation. It is the first time I have heard him be as frank about that, and I hope he is as frank with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister when he arrives next week. What about the first part of the motion which deplores the repeated incursions by Vietnamese armed forces into Thailand? Now, whether the Government likes it or not, Cambodian civilians are still being harassed by Vietnamese forces operating in Cambodia and along the border regions with Thailand. There is the constant danger and the constant threat of Vietnamese incursions physically or through shelling and other things into Thai territory. So, there is nothing wrong with deploring incursions by Vietnamese in the past, and I am glad to acknowledge that the Foreign Minister said that if it occurs again he will deplore it in the future. So, I acknowledge that, but to suggest that the motion is out of date when that situation is still very much on the ground in Cambodia is simply to attempt to mislead. The second part talks about strong support of the efforts of ASEAN and the United Nations. Sure, it refers to a resolution not of last year but of the year before, but the essence of the resolution remains the same and therefore the proposition before the House remains in order. The third part expresses concern at the uncertainty created within ASEAN by the Government's determination to attach a high priority to bilateral relations with Vietnam. There is uncertainty , and I have already mentioned that, within ASEAN as to the reasons why the Government attaches 'high priority'. Why the high priority? That is the question which the Opposition would like the Government to answer. We have no quarrel with bilateral relationships with countries including Vietnam. Obviously we have no quarrel with that, but we do have a quarrel with the stress put on these bilateral relationships with Vietnam. Why the high priority? What is so important about Vietnam? Why would the Government put at risk long standing relationships with countries of a similar political background to our own whose very existence in certain instances is threatened by an expansionist Vietnam? As my colleague put it in debate earlier this morning, the fact remains that the people in ASEAN, particularly the people in Thailand, have a very real and live concern about their continued existence free from threat from an expansionist Vietnam. We, down here, can be very theoretical about the whole situation. We are not living in Thailand. We are not exposed to the threat. We are not having to deal with the people crossing the border at all times to escape the depredations of the occupying Vietnamese forces in Cambodia. We do not have to live with that situation day by day. So, we can take a lofty theoretical attitude towards it. The fact of the matter is that ASEANs are concerned about this continued high priority being placed on bilateral relationships with Vietnam. I ask the Foreign Minister again to tell us why he is prepared to put at risk those relationships with ASEAN countries and other countries which are so important to the future and security of this country. Why is he prepared to put at risk those relationships in order to curry favour with the Vietnamese Government? It is an occupying government which has forces numbering 180,000 to 200,000 troops in Cambodia at the moment and 40,000 to 50,000 troops in Laos at the moment. It is a nonsense to suggest that we in Australia should put a high priority on those relationships. One has to ask what special conditions, what special reasons, drive this Minister and this Government to put that high priority on those relationships. For these and other reasons, the Opposition cannot accept an amendment which seeks cleverly to conceal a removal of the condemnation of the continuing occupation. The further detail of the amendment seeks to mislead this House and the people of Australia as to the real performance of this Government in its relationships with the Vietnamese and their continuing occupation of Cambodia and Laos. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(1.59) —The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has already indicated that he is quite happy to restore that section of the motion which condemns the continued occupation of Laos and Cambodia by Vietnam. But I would like to make an appeal to-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104 as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to move forthwith a motion of censure of the Government of which he gave notice earlier today for the next sitting. Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Government of which he gave notice earlier today for the next sitting. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, does the Leader of the House intend, under standing order 110, to treat this motion as a censure of the Government? Mr SPEAKER —I will, by indulgence, allow that question. Mr YOUNG —I have had to give very serious consideration to this matter. I had to decide whether the Australian people wanted to listen to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) for 30 minutes or 20 minutes. So we are not using standing order 110. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.02) —I think it is important that the people of Australia realise that this is the fourth occasion since the change of government on which motions of censure have been moved against the Government. The first was on 27 November 1983, the second on 7 December 1983 and the third on 8 December 1983. In spite of the absolutely impossible behaviour of the Government on a number of occasions on matters which pertain, in the case of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), to national security, there has been no acceptance by the Government of what under normal parliamentary practice is accepted as a proper right and opportunity for members to speak within what is known as a motion of censure of the Government itself. One finds the established convention set out on page 4 of the twentieth edition of May's Parliamentary Practice. That document states: By established convention the Government never fails to accede to the demand of the Leader of the Opposition to allot a day for the discussion . . . This Convention . . . Mr SPEAKER —Could I remind the Leader of the National Party that we are dealing with a motion for the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders? The right honourable gentleman is taking the debate rather further than that. Mr SINCLAIR —Speaking to the motion for the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders, Mr Speaker, I just quoted specifically from May with respect to the time allocated for debating the suspension of Standing Orders. I referred to the British practice where, not only are Standing Orders suspended but also a whole day is allotted for the purpose of such discussion. If one has a look at Odgers' s Australian Senate Practice one will see in terms of the suspension of Standing Orders it is the custom here and in the other place not only for Standing Orders to be suspended but also for the Senate itself to adjourn other business for the period of that debate. We know how much in the application of procedures and practices this Government has been prepared to let convention ride, but I think it is apt in considering the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and Sessional Orders that one turn to a document entitled An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons by Lord Campion. This document was published by Macmillan and Co. Ltd in 1958. The following comment is made at page 117: . . . 'Vote of censure'-a motion generally moved by the leader of the Opposition and leading to a 'full-dress' debate. The challenge of a vote of censure is always accepted by the Government. A little further on the document states: The tendency seems to be for a Government to grant the time for such motions whenever there is any reasonable cause for them . . . The suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders is not sufficient within the character of the motion that is to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). This motion goes to the very heart of the Government. It goes to the heart of the responsibility of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the senior law officer of the Commonwealth. It goes to the heart in the exercise of proper responsibility by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In the suspension of standing orders, in the application of the conventions of Parliament and in the application of the Westminster system it has been the tradition for standing order 110 to be applied, not just for the proceedings to be suspended so that the debate can ensue but so that there can be proper consideration of censure of government as a whole. From our side of the House we regard it as yet another instance of this Government running away from what is peremptorily going to be thrown onto the people of New South Wales, an early judgment on corruption, without the opportunity to see and hear the facts and the circumstances as they should be argued in this place. In considering the suspension of Standing Orders, I hope the people of Australia recognise that this Government yet again is hiding from the truth, that this Government yet again is refusing to abide by the application of standing order 110 which each honourable member opposite should know is vital to the preservation of democracy. So little they care for democracy! Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(2.05) —Mr Speaker, I do not think the Australian people have ever been treated to a more hypocritical lot of nonsense from a group which does not obey and never has obeyed the conventions of democracy. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.06) —I move: That this House censures the Government for- (1) its cover-up and its failure to hold an open, impartial and independent inquiry into the material related to the Federal Judge named in the transcripts of the New South Wales corruption tapes; (2) its failure to bring before the Parliament the material necessary for Parliament to determine its responsibility under section 72 (ii) of the Constitution in relation to the Federal Judge named in the transcripts of the New South Wales corruption tapes; (3) its failure to ask the Chief Justice of the High Court to ask the Federal Judge named in the transcripts of the New South Wales corruption tapes to stand aside while these inquiries are carried out; (4) its condoning of a clear and indefensible conflict of interest by the Attorney-General in his handling of the matter; (5) its support of the action of the Wran Government in rushing to the polls before the Jackson Inquiry has been completed; and (6) its blatant political conspiracy in attempting to conceal the magnitude of the issues involved and shield prominent members, former members and associates of the Labor Party from examination for complicity in corruption and misconduct. In the last two weeks the Government has been given every opportunity by the Opposition to come clean, to establish procedures for investigations which would ensure that the truth came out. We have asked for a royal commission because clearly a body with the power to subpoena and compel the truth is the way to ensure the truth even when headed by a special prosecutor. How could a task force consisting of State and Federal police be seen as independent when officers of both forces are mentioned in the tapes? Governments have a responsibility to ensure the integrity and the standing of their police forces by excluding them from these inquiries. The Government ignored our demand for a royal commission. Next we asked that in relation to the judge mentioned on the tapes the Government table a sanitised version of the tapes so that the Parliament could exercise its proper responsibility as to whether the judge was involved in misconduct. The Government ignored our request. Only yesterday the Opposition asked the Government to establish a joint select committee to meet after the New South Wales election to examine the tapes as is Parliament's responsibility in relation to the judge. Again, to date, the Government in this House has ignored our request. It may well be that this is now not the end of a week but the beginning of the real discovery by the Parliament as to what is involved in the tapes and the transcripts. Let us see what the Senate does in relation to this matter. Therefore, this is not the end; it is only the beginning because we will not be giving up on the proper pursuit of Parliament's right. In rejecting the constitutional right of Parliament to assess whether the judge had misbehaved, the Hawke Government is rejecting every convention under the Constitution and, indeed, the Constitution itself. Parliament has that right. However, in the case of Mr Justice Murphy-an old friend of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), indeed his one-time employer-the Government is ignoring the rights of Parliament. One must ask why. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I must direct the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the rules with regard to criticism of conduct of persons for whom a substantive motion must be moved. These rules still apply to this debate. I ask him to observe that. Mr PEACOCK —I accept that, Mr Speaker. The fact is, there can be no serious doubt that section 72(ii) of the Constitution gives the right to Parliament and I believe it will exercise that right despite the endeavours of this craven Government to prevent the proper constitutional processes taking place. The Opposition's view is supported by the convention debates. It is supported on this point by Mr Temby and by the Solicitor-General. It is supported by most commentators on areas of constitutional law. It is ironical that the Attorney- General, long a champion of a broad approach to civil liberties, long a champion of a non-legalistic approach to the interpretation of the Constitution, long a champion of looking after the interests of the Parliament when he was in opposition, should now be sheltering behind some very narrow interpretations of the meaning of judicial behaviour. What an absolute charade the argument of the Government is. Everybody agrees that this is a matter for Parliament to determine, yet the Parliament is not being given the material on which it is able to make a judgment. Where is the logic? Where is the truth? It cannot be said on the one hand that it is the responsibility of Parliament, but on the other hand say that no material will be given to the Parliament. The Government's actions are false and indicate, as I say, a craven cover-up. All Australians should be asking how the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Attorney-General can ignore the views, the traditions, the law and the logic that lead to the conclusion that a cover-up is what is going on; a cover-up is what the Government feels is desirable. We find it extraordinary that the Government of this country defies all its responsibilities and refuses even to table a sanitised version of the tapes in the Parliament because it says that they are unauthenticated. Yet the Attorney- General saw fit, presumably with the support of the Prime Minister, to go to the judge in question with all the information to allow him even to vet the aide- memoires of the conversations and to give him every assistance, and when the Attorney-General had already decided, on the basis of the Temby opinion, that neither criminal charges nor misbehaviour were applicable. Now indeed yesterday my colleagues in the Senate moved a censure against the Attorney-General for his handling of the tapes affair. The Opposition expressed its grave doubts whether the Attorney-General had always been impartial in his judgments on the affair. What I have outlined-it is only an outline-supports that doubt and supports the view that the Government is not interested in getting at the truth. Yesterday in this Parliament we raised the matter of the so-called Sala affair and the relationship that came out there between the solicitor, Mr Morgan Ryan, and the then Attorney-General. Quite apart from the way the matter was handled, it is now of very great significance for it undercuts Mr Temby's 'defence', if one likes, of the judge in question and his contacts with Morgan Ryan, which is based of course on the lofty heights argument. That involvement in 1974 shows the close relationship between the solicitor and the then Attorney-General and reveals that the now judge well knew precisely who Ryan was and the nature of his clientele. To suggest, as has been done, that His Honour had no idea of Ryan's disrepute is shown to be absolute humbug. On Tuesday, when this matter was raised in the Senate, Senator Evans said he talked to the judge about the matter, although he did not mention him by name of course. He also said that following a letter to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), he was perfectly satisfied that the case had been handled properly. But with every day that passes Senator Evans is embellishing his explanations. Yesterday we learnt for the first time that there had been a high level conflict about the release of Sala within the Attorney-General's Department. On Tuesday it was allegedly 'just a few disgruntled individuals'. We also learnt for the first time that after Sala was released, against strong police advice to the contrary, shortly afterwards Interpol informed the Commonwealth Police that its suspicion that Sala was travelling on a forged passport was correct. We heard for the first time that Mr Morgan Ryan was the solicitor who had made representations to Attorney-General Murphy about the case . Despite these new admissions we still have not had answers to our questions about whether Sala was connected to an international and an Australian drug ring . We have yet to hear of Sala's association with Abe Saffron, the crime figure, while he was in Australia and the Attorney-General has yet to tell us whether there are on file, or whether they have been destroyed, allegations about political interference in the case or whether the direct intervention by Attorney-General Murphy was in direct breach of all precedent in handling matters such as this. There has been no mention of any material on police files. Dr Theophanous —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a censure motion against the Government. There is no substantive motion moved against Mr Justice Murphy. The attacks have been made against Mr Justice Murphy and consequently we have a situation where we are having all these attacks being made on the integrity of the judge, contrary to the Standing Orders. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has already issued the warning about the substantive motion which would be critical of a member of the judiciary. I have listened carefully and the Leader of the Opposition, apart from one slip, has avoided that mention. That he refers to a gentleman who held a post in the Government previously is quite in order in the debate. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. There has been no mention of any material on police files in which a bribery attempt of police officers, allegedly by Mr Morgan Ryan, was allegedly recorded. We have not been told by the Attorney- General that there was no extradition order out for Sala. Enough of the case of Sala itself. What of the relationship between the current Attorney-General and the judge in question? The fact is, as has been brought out in the Senate, no one would deny the close relationship over the years between those two persons. The reality is that it is now time for the Government to look at this matter as it is, that the matter be taken out of the hands of this conspiring Attorney- General, and indeed it is time in fact for the Attorney-General to be replaced. It is obvious that neither the Prime Minister nor the Attorney-General has approached this case from the position of the Prime Minister of Australia and the first law officer of the land. They are just another group of second rate politicians protecting their mates, continuing the protection of the network of Labor people that was so obvious in the Young affair. Like the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) cronies are now being put above the law, above the Constitution, leading unquestionably to the view that it is a cover-up. It comes down to putting politics above the law, politics above the search for truth and politics above the public interest. The sad fact is that right from the start the Wran and the Hawke governments have tried to cover up on the New South Wales corruption tapes because they are afraid of what they would reveal; namely, yet another network of influence between organised crime, politicians, others in the community and also police officers. Yesterday the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated the attempted cover-up had gone full circle when he claimed that the Age tapes were simply a rerun of those published in the National Times in November 1983. That is the same excuse used by the New South Wales Premier when the Age tapes were first published in early Feburary. We all know what happened with the investigation into the allegations in the National Times-nothing, precisely nothing. It is only the publication of a large amount of tapes and transcripts which has forced the hand of both the Wran and Hawke governments. Equally as important, the Premier, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, have always known that the Age holds a much larger number of tapes and transcripts. How can the Parliament trust a government when it misleads on even these basic issues? The shameful attempt at cover-up by the Wran Government is well known: Declare the original articles a smear campaign; have the Hawke Government come behind it . Despite the pressure from the Opposition when we raised the Jackson matter, it was said to be a smear. What happened? He was forced to resign. The interesting thing is that on every occasion that the allegations have been raised this man, the current occupant of the prime ministership, has been prepared to declare his total support for the Premier of New South Wales. Every time this man has gone into the New South Wales election campaign the reality is that he has stood with a corrupt government and given it total support. 'Orchestrated exercises' were what Mr Wran claimed the allegations were. The Prime Minister then started using the same words. Mr Wran then tried to nail the allegations as phoney; the Prime Minister used the same words. Indeed, when we talk about the tapes, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) had to try to support that line by coming into this House yesterday or the day before with his wild, unsupported declaration that 'it is a faked tape if there was one at all'. The Prime Minister has tried to protect the Premier of New South Wales each time by claiming that the allegations were groundless. But with the famous selective amnesia he is showing he seems to forget about the charges brought against Farquhar and Humphreys and, of course, the resignation of Minister Jackson. These are only the most recent examples of the allegations which have been substantiated. This Government cannot come in here and allege that all is right in New South Wales and claim that there is veracity and truth and honesty. Every time the Government has been put to the test it has been seen to be at fault. The disclosures and the cover-up have not prevented the truth coming out; nor will it prevent the truth coming out in this Parliament. The reality is: There is an ultimate double standard at stake here. 'The tapes are illegal', said the Prime Minister. Allegedly the tapes are unauthenticated; therefore it is not in the public interest that they be brought forward. People ought to be reminded of those remarks. Within the last decade, on 7 August 1972, the Prime Minister participated in the playing of a tape of a telephone conversation between a senior oil executive and a private distribution contractor. Of course it was 10 years ago. This is fairly fundamental stuff. What did he say? He said that that tape was illegally made and it was unauthenticated. Yet the Prime Minister justified his action by saying: I believe it is a duty of anyone who's got information which will disclose the nature of these people to reveal it. What a double standard; what hypocrisy. Let us look at the statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on 28 February when he discussed unauthorised eavesdropping. He said: No one will ever be able to blow off steam with loved ones or trusted intimates ; no one will be able to gossip, or brag, or exaggerate, or fib . . . A line has been taken by Mr Temby along that channel. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have no difficulty in accepting and exploiting that view. All I can say on that point is that David Combe for one will be fascinated to learn that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General now accept that bragging, exaggerating and telling fibs are not uncommon when two people talk together. The fact is that the Hawke Government is going through a blatant cover-up. There has been more than enough time to determine the authenticity of the tapes. The Age has sought to and the Age claims that it has been able to allege that they are authentic. The Government has had weeks to test the authenticity of the tapes. Why has it not done so? The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and their accomplice, Mr Wran, twist and turn at every development trying to divert attention from the real issues. Now we have the further twist by Mr Wran to hold an election instead of an investigation. The reality is, as we have pointed out, that this Parliament is the determinant . The Government has swept that to one side. We have pointed out the opportunities that have been given to the Government by way of sanitised transcripts, royal commissions and parliamentary committees to investigate the truth. The law is there and to be obeyed, but the Government walks from the law all the time. I trust that members of the Senate who are viewing these matters objectively will bring to account those who have sought to deceive the Australian people and, through certain members of the Australian Labor Party, are seeking to twist the law. This discredited, deceitful Government will fail in its attempt to cover up. The truth will out at every turn. The Government has twisted, connived and deceived, but the truth unquestionably will out. What will be the Government's position-I cannot speak for other than the Opposition-if the other House passes its motion and sends it to this House? If the Government rejects it it will stand condemned. If the Government rejects it we will ask the Senate to proclaim its own inquiry. That is why this is not the end of the matter by any means. For the Government it could be only the beginning. The Government does not stand alone on this. It involves all those people associated outside. Serious allegations have been made and, bit by bit, more information comes out. It will eventually bring down the standards of this Parliament if the Parliament is not able to judge. By dint of what is ahead, this Government may well be brought down on this issue alone. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.27) —Mr Speaker, I second the motion. There is no more significant motion that an opposition can move and there is no motion which is more deserved by this Government than the one the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has now moved. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) seeks a cover-up. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the other place told us after the Tasmanian air defence raid, the spy planes over the Gordon River dam, that his defence was that it seemed like a good idea at the time. We are now at stage two. He now says: 'I have nothing to hide'. The Prime Minister wants a cover-up; all he is left with is a G-string. The issues are complex. On the one hand is the question of the protection of the privacy of the individuals involved in the tapes and certainly the protection of the rights of decency and the good standards of government around Australia. On the other side is the question of the revelation of illegality wherever it might occur. There is no doubt that the honourable gentleman who is interjecting has no decency. I think he would be interested in his own words, which my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), referred to in this place only the other day. We all remember what that larrikin Prime Minister said in a GTV interview before Mr Michael Willessee in August 1982. Hawke said: . . . not only do I not regard it as any significant invasion of privacy that I should be concerned about, but I believe it's a duty of anyone who's got information which will disclose the nature of these people and what they will do to decent Australians, then they SHOULD be revealed for the sort of people they are and the perfidious and hypocritical actions that they undertake. So let it be for Hawke; so let it be for Wran; so let it be for the named judge, whose name we are not allowed to mention but who everybody knows is of the High Court of Australia; so let it be for each of those other figures in the tapes; and so let it be for all those within the machinations for power who seek to protect the present Labor Government in New South Wales. I think what we need to recognise, first of all, is that the central issue is whether or not the tapes are authentic. We have had all sorts of qualifications in this place-from the Prime Minister, from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen)-as to whether or not the tapes or any part of them are authentic. Let us look at the chapter of events. This morning Dr Paul Gerber said: We are not talking about spurious allegations made as an abuse of Parliamentary privilege. We are talking about tapes, the authenticity of which has been assumed by many and indeed, I understand that Mr Evans in fact went to see the judge and confronted him with part of the allegation. We need to realise that if this were just any other allegation it would never have come before the Parliament. If this were just an allegation that did not have substance, if it did not have something that needed to be examined, why did the Attorney-General on two occasions interview or have discussions with the judge? If it were just a casual event, why was an aide-memoire prepared-an aide- memoire to which, I might add, we in this place and those in the other place have been denied access? Why is it that the Attorney-General in the other place and on television has successively referred to the authenticity at least of the conversations? On the national Today show of 29 February, Senator Evans said: I think it is almost certainly the case that a great many of the conversations between the parties in question did take place in some form or another . . . Then, if we look at the record in the Senate, we find that on a number of occasions he has validated that at least some type of conversation took place. On 29 February, he said: It has never been the case that the Government has denied outright that the material is authentic. In answer to a question from Senator Sir John Carrick he refers again to his two discussions, and the fact that the discussions themselves occurred although the tapes may not necessarily have been accurate. In reference to the conversations with the judge, he said: As I recall it, the judge's answer was that he had had such a conversation to the extent that he could recall it with the solicitor in question . . . So we have Senator Evans validating the fact of the conversations and we have the fact that the judge himself acknowledges that a conversation took place. It is not the tapes themselves or their authenticity that we are looking at behind this; it is the fact that the very actions of the Government have added validity to the conversations that took place. So we are in the position where, after successive moves by the Opposition, we still have no opportunity either to exercise our responsibility under section 72(ii) of the Constitution or to undertake that procedure which the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth in his opinion outlined as being necessary for us to exercise that responsibility. I refer to the comment on page 10 of the opinion of the Attorney-General when he refers to Odgers and talks about the proper procedures that should be followed by a joint select committee. He talks about proved misbehaviour. The Government, by its very actions, has first identified that it is necessary for the Parliament and the people to acknowledge that there have been conversations. Through the opinion of Mr Temby QC we know that there has been a number of acts which are irregular-to say the very least-improper, and which, if the transcripts are to be believed, go well and truly into a series of major offences within the State and, I suggest, Federal jurisdiction. Mr Speaker, it is necessary that we realise the nature of those allegations. Let us look at just what they include. First, we have the allegations against the judge. They include the allegation that the judge has been in constant contact with a number of persons who, to say the least, are of marginal integrity. At the behest of Mr Fixit, Mr Morgan Ryan, the solicitor who is named repeatedly throughout the tapes, he has been involved in trying to secure-if one is to believe it-a number of variations to those matters which should properly be processed by a government. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) referred to Sala. Of course Sala was no tourist who committed a few minor indiscretions; he was a key member of an important international drug ring . It is pathetic to see the Attorney-General try to cover up for what at the very least was an extraordinary blunder and blathering about Sala's civil liberties. It is relevant that this censure motion is about the connection between figures such as the judge and Mr Ryan. It shows that, as with the tapes, the Attorney- General handles evidence very selectively. Every day he has had to correct and embellish his account. He could have tabled Mr Menzies' report, he could have tabled the police file and he could have taken Mr Menzies with him when he went to see the judge on this matter some 12 days ago. But he has done none of these things. In all matters relating to the judge, with whom the Attorney-General acknowledges he has a close personal association, who on a number of occasions he has said is his mentor and under whom he acknowledges he has served either as an employee or a consultant, he has been unnecessarily and undesirably coy. It is another case of the Attorney-General not fulfilling what Lord Shawcross said was the hallmark of all good Attorneys. We need to recognise that we have the involvement of the judge and the cover-up by the Attorney-General. We then have the involvement of another person, who is equally important in the scene of things; that is, Mr John Ducker. His relevance to this place is particularly significant. We all know that on 26 August last he was appointed as a director of Qantas Airways Ltd. Government members interjecting- Mr SINCLAIR —Honourable members talk about propriety, but of course the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does not worry about propriety. We remember what the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) said about Mr John Reid, that very estimable Australian businessman on whose services the Government still relies. We know all about propriety from that side of the House. Mr John Ducker is the public servant who is alleged within the tapes to have been the senior public servant who received $50,000. Mr Peacock —$46,000 went to the Boulevard. Mr SINCLAIR —It was $4,000, I am sorry. Obviously that is the amount of money which John Yuen, the restaurant proprietor, was talking about. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. It should be made quite clear that in such a debate one expects a background of interjection but it should not be to the extent that an honourable member cannot be heard by the House. I ask honourable members to desist. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, I think their interjections demonstrate the sensitivity with which they approach the whole subject. Of course, Mr John Ducker was made a director of Qantas on 26 August last. It is important that we realise that in these circumstances the Solicitor-General from New South Wales, in an opinion of 17 February 1984 about an allegation that a New South Wales public servant received a substantial bribe, said: The material does in fact suggest that a senior New South Wales public servant may have received a substantial amount of money. However, it must be remembered that the material is unauthenticated, and even if it were authenticated, there is no reason why the truth of statements in the document should be assumed. This is of course a very serious allegation. Certain avenues of inquiry are suggested by the material, although it may well be that in the absence of authentication of the material, such inquiries would not materially advance the matter. I recommend that the Crown Solicitor, if he is prepared to accept the material . . . be asked to study the relevant material and consult with me on possible lines of inquiry. Mr Hunt —Who said that? Mr SINCLAIR —That was the New South Wales Solicitor-General in regard to a present director of Qantas. I suggest that this Government is trying in some way to cover up the acts of the Attorney-General and I suggest also that it is now appropriate that Mr Ducker stand aside while those processes that Mary Gaudron, as Solicitor-General of New South Wales, suggested should be processed are processed. Finally, Mr Speaker, behind all of this is the question of the judge and the necessary maintenance of the integrity of the judiciary in Australia. Last week this side of the House put a motion to the Parliament in relation to that; a motion which every member of the Australian Labor Party opposed. We all remember that in a letter to the Age of 3 March last Dr Spry referred to the absolute necessity to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. What is happening is that because of the nature of the failure of this Government to accept our request that the tapes be tabled, even in a sanitised form so that they can be considered when we exercise our parliamentary responsibility-honourable members will recall that the Government has refused every action we have requested-my colleague the Leader of the Opposition suggested a judicial inquiry or royal commission, which was also rejected. We then had the precipitate haste with which the New South Wales Government ran to the polls. We will not now be able to understand what happened about the early release of prisoners scheme in New South Wales, Mr Jackson and his suspension from the New South Wales Ministry. The whole of the actions by this Government reeks of a cover-up. Naturally, there is a relationship not only in New South Wales but also at the very core of the supporters of the Prime Minister within the Australian Labor Party. We know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and his new centre left power base is establishing the run towards the next leadership contest in the Government. An article by Michelle Grattan in the Melbourne Age dated 3 March states: The Hawke Government walks on eggshells when it comes to its relations with the Wran Government. . . . . The NSW Labor machine has become an important part of Mr Hawke's power base. . . . . . . . the NSW Right was influential in the review of the assets test, which was seen as a potentially damaging issue for Wran. We have heard of Murray Farquhar, Kevin Humphreys and the whole circumstances surrounding Mr Jackson's resignation from the Ministry. Why can we not have a standing down or a request of the Chief Justice of the High Court to stand down the judge who was named? Why can we not have the standing aside of Mr Ducker from the Qantas Board? Why can we not have proper inquiries into matters which are not of themselves necessarily authentic but, by the actions of the Government, have been made authentic? The action of the Attorney-General, the ambivalence of his response to questioning and the acknowledgement that the tapes may not have been original but that the conversations took place mean that the people of Australia and this Parliament must now be satisfied by a proper inquiry. That can be undertaken only if this Government accepts its responsibilities. I totally endorse the censure of the Government moved by the Leader of the Opposition and have a great deal of pleasure in seconding it. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.43) —What started out as a pathetic diversion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has descended into an unbelievable farce. People around this country must be splitting their sides with mirth when they understand that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has addressed himself in this place to appropriate standards of behaviour. It is a farce. I need say no more to establish the farce that we have just witnessed than to remind the House of the immortal words of one of the Leader's own Party members who cannot bear to be in here to listen to him. When, at the end of the meeting at which members of the National Party cast their vote as to who should be the leader, he was asked by a discerning journalist 'Who won?' he replied ' Bob Hawke'. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) was right. He is also right in not being in here to participate in this farce. Let us see what this motion is not about. It is not about the responsibilities of the Parliament under the Constitution. It is not about alleged conflicts of interest. It is not about alleged complicity in corruption. It is not about standards of behaviour of Ministers. This motion is about one thing and one thing only; the New South Wales State election, an election which was brought on by the smear and innuendo of the State and Federal oppositions. Tactics have been pursued with appalling disregard for the legal standards and the independence of the judiciary in this country, as reflected in the disgraceful attack in this House last week by the right honourable member for New England ( Mr Sinclair) on Mr Justice Cross, an attack which, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) himself conceded on the Willesee show on Tuesday, he was fully involved in and supported. In terms of this censure motion let me make a number of points: Firstly, let me go to the total propriety of the Government's action. The Government acted immediately the tapes were published in the Age. On 3 February the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) wrote to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) , requesting him to arrange for a police investigation of the material. On the same day he directed the material to be handed over to a senior officer of the Australian Federal Police. Later that day the Special Minister of State asked the Australian Federal Police to investigate the material with a view to determining whether Federal offences had been committed. The Special Minister of State asked for a full investigation and a report on all aspects of the matter. Opposition members-Boring, boring. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest to honourable members that the interjection they are using would be very boring to anyone who is listening to the proceedings. I ask them to desist. Mr HAWKE —A preliminary report from the Commissioner of Police was received by the Special Minister of State on the morning of Monday, 13 February, and was immediately considered. The report stated that the material disclosed the probability of an unauthorised, and accordingly illegal, interception of telephone calls in New South Wales. It also identified in general terms a number of matters requiring further examination and investigation, asked for assistance from the Attorney-General's Department in assessing the material and identified a series of procedural options for carrying the investigation forward; the favoured one, so far as possible Federal offences were concerned, being investigation under a Commonwealth Special Prosecutor. It was decided, as a possible prelude to the Special Prosecutor option being pursued, that the Director of Public Prosecutions-designate and current President of the Law Council of Australia, Mr Ian Temby, QC, be briefed to advise on what offences against Federal law, if any, appeared to be disclosed or suggested by the material, and what further inquiries should be made. Mr Temby was to be asked to advise as a matter of urgency, and to give priority attention to, the position of the judge allegedly involved in the taped conversations. Following the receipt of Mr Temby's opinion the Government announced on 17 February: A Special Prosecutor would be appointed to supervise further investigations, in relation to the tapes and transcripts handed by the Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 and 2 February 1984; he would supervise a joint investigating team, consisting of selected police officers from the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police Force, and would be charged with bringing prosecutions for any breaches of Federal law discovered as a result of investigations into, or in relation to, the contents of those materials; questions concerning State law that may arise from the materials would be a matter for the law enforcement authorities of the State of New South Wales. Mr Temby was appointed Special Prosecutor on 21 February. On 20 February the Attorney-General sent a written reference to the Solicitor-General to establish whether his views confirmed the views of Mr Temby in relation to the question of misbehaviour under section 72 of the Constitution. So in view of all this, there is simply no basis for any suggestion that the Government did not act with all urgency and full propriety. I now turn to the question of parliament and the judge. As regards any claim that the Government failed to bring before Parliament the material necessary for it to determine its responsibilities under section 72 (ii) of the Constitution, the simple fact is that three independent inquiries-by Mr Temby, by the New South Wales Solicitor-General and by the Australian Federal Police-found no evidence of any wrong-doing or criminality on the part of the judge. What is the point of tabling the material in Parliament unless the Opposition has no confidence in the Australian Federal Police, Mr Temby and the New South Wales Solicitor-General? As I suggested yesterday this may well be the case in view of its response to the report of Mr Justice Cross's Special Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations by the Rt. Hon. Ian McCahon Sinclair. Let us come to section 72 of the Constitution. It is absolutely clear that Parliament is not at liberty to apply any criterion that takes its fancy to determine what misbehaviour of a judge might mean under section 72. As the Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith, pointed out in his opinion, Parliament is very circumscribed as to the matters it can take into account. This is supported by the convention debates themselves. What the Solicitor-General's opinion makes perfectly clear, and what the Attorney-General has pointed out in the Senate, is that there are only two sorts of circumstances when it would be appropriate for Parliament to consider removal for misbehaviour. These are, first, some misbehaviour attaching to the performance of the judge in his judicial office-there is no possible suggestion that this is at issue in this case-and, second, misbehaviour in the sense of criminal misconduct of such a character that it is inappropriate for a judge to stay in office. I repeat that, in the opinion of the Australian Federal Police, of Mr Temby and of the New South Wales Solicitor-General there is no question of any criminal misconduct by the judge, let alone criminal misconduct that would lead to a consideration of removal from office. Those are the facts and they completely undermine the credibility of this censure motion. In replying to this motion, let me come to the appalling behaviour of the Opposition. Let us consider the facts as I put them to the House previously. They are: Illegal tapes involving a massive breach of the law; unauthenticated tapes; transcripts existing with no tapes to back up their accuracy; no identification of any person involved in the making of the tapes and all this alleged to have happened some time ago in 1979-80. There has been a massive invasion of the privacy of citizens of this country involving on their face record approximately 3,000 conversations. The people of Australia will understand that what the Opposition is doing is supporting a situation where people can break the law, grossly invade the privacy of citizens and have total anonymity involved in who is doing the taping . After all those things are done, the Opposition would have this Parliament come in and impugn the character and integrity of citizens whose privacy has been invaded by a process of the breaking of the law. I say to the Opposition that that sort of behaviour is not simply totally unacceptable to this Government but will be proved to be totally unacceptable to the people of Australia. I mention, Mr Speaker, that these tapes and transcripts have allegedly been in existence for a period approaching five years. This fact gives rise to the question as to whether Ministers of the previous Government had access to the material and what action they took. Obviously I can say nothing about this matter at the moment but I give direct warning to the Opposition that this aspect of the affair is being followed up. Let us now come to the question of Mr Lane and the Leader of the Opposition. It is very interesting and I ask all honourable members to note it closely. The Opposition Leader makes a shallow pretence of being concerned about the civil liberties issues involved. This is what the Opposition Leader said on the Willesee program on Tuesday, and which was referred to in an editorial in today' s Daily Telegraph. He said: The first approach you have to take is to recognise that you could be jeopardising the civil liberties of the people involved. But what do we find in this morning's papers? This is in today's Courier Mail: Mr Lane said last night that Mr Peacock's office had contacted him three times since he spoke in Parliament. 'As they (the Liberal Opposition) were still trying to decide what to do federally, I was encouraged to develop the issue more by raising the matter again,' Mr Lane said. That is the hypocrisy of the Opposition pretending to be concerned about civil liberties when it is in there encouraging its Queensland colleagues to do their worst, even if the action is that of a member of the National Party of Australia -although he was formerly a member of the Liberal Party of Australia. I notice that the Opposition Leader and his office have denied any such calls. Mr Lane was asked about this in the State Parliament today. He was asked in the Parliament who was telling the truth. Mr Lane replied: 'I am telling the truth'. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition and his office are not telling the truth, according to Mr Lane. But this is not the end of this squalid episode involving the Leader of the Opposition. Today's Brisbane Telegraph carried this report: Mr Lane said the Federal Opposition was happy he had raised the matter and encouraged him to pursue the issue further. He denied claims by Mr Peacock's Canberra office that Mr Peacock's staff had not spoken to him about the matter. Mr Lane said one of Mr Peacock's private secretaries, Mr John Harvey, had phoned him and was pleased he had raised the matter in Parliament. It is no surprise that Mr Harvey once worked for the National Party. I put to the Leader of the Opposition: Does he still deny that his office did not contact Mr Lane or does he now claim that Mr Lane misled the Queensland Parliament? The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by an individual on the other side is a sham and it is a pretence. As I said, it has nothing to do with the real issues facing Australia and accordingly I move: That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:- This House censures the Opposition for- (1) the use of the Federal Parliament to attempt to give credence to illegal material and legitimacy to the illegal interception of telephones; (2) the use of the Federal Parliament to undertake one of the greatest invasions of privacy and abuses of civil liberties in this nation's history against citizens; (3) its continued use of the Federal Parliament to smear and defame members of the Federal and New South Wales judiciary; (4) its attempts to impugn the character of the Solicitor-General of Australia, the Director of Public Prosecutions designate and the management of the Australian Federal Police; Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister's time has expired. Mr Sinclair —Point of order, Mr Speaker. I put to you that that motion is out of order. It is a direct negative of the motion now before the Chair. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The form used is as an alternative proposition. It has occurred on previous occasions in this House. Mr Young —I move: That the speaker's time be extended to cover this motion. Mr Ian Cameron —I wish to take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to point out to the House that the shadow Minister for Primary Industry-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for Maranoa in his proper seat? Mr Ian Cameron —I wish to point out to the House that the shadow Minister for Primary Industry has been given-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for Maranoa in his proper seat? Mr Ian Cameron —Permission by me as-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —Acting Whip to have-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister's time has expired. The way he is going, we would like to give him a bit more time. Does he want an extension? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the Leader of the Opposition-- Mr Peacock —Well, if he doesn't want an extension-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition, if he had been listening to proceedings, would know that the Leader of the House had moved an extension of time. It was the interruption of the honourable member for Maranoa that prevented it. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Speaker, I moved a proper point of order. The Prime Minister knows that the shadow Minister is not here-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. The Leader of the House has moved that the Prime Minister's time be extended. Mr HAWKE —(Extension of time granted) I am indebted to the House. My amendment continues: 5. its attempt to politically interfere in the operations of the High Court of Australia, the independence of which is a cornerstone of our democracy; 6. its involvement in a political conspiracy with the Government of Queensland; and 7. above all its failure to address its political responsibility to debate the economic and social welfare of the nation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.01) —This debate and this censure of the Government involves two central issues and two central issues alone. The first of those issues is the role of the Parliament of this country in the matter; the second central issue is the political conduct of the Government of this country in the matter. In the time available to me to speak on this censure motion I will deal with those two issues. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made much in his remarks-it is picked up also in the amendment that he has moved to the motion-of the claim that in some way the Opposition is attacking the integrity of the Solicitor-General and the Special Prosecutor, Mr Temby. I cast no reflections on their integrity. I cast no reflections on the integrity of the Solicitor-General or of Mr Temby. What the Opposition and I reject, and what the Australian people will reject, is the fact that the Government continues to deny to this Parliament its constitutional role to determine matters of behaviour relating to Federal judges. Nothing that the Prime Minister has said in this debate has in any way gainsaid the fact that under the Constitution this Parliament and this Parliament alone has the prerogative of determining whether there has been misbehaviour by a Federal judge. The Government is asking us to substitute the opinions of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the Solicitor-General and Mr Temby for the judgment of this Parliament. For us to reject that substitution is not in any way to impugn the integrity of the Solicitor-General or of Mr Temby; rather, it is to assert the role of this Parliament. If the founding fathers had wanted the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to be the judges of this issue they would have said so in the Constitution, but they quite expressly said that that role belonged to this Parliament. What would the Government have the role of the Parliament reduced to? It would have it reduced to the role of a total cipher. It would have it reduced to the role of simply receiving the judgments of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and then deciding whether the judge in question ought to be removed, making no adjudication at all on the question of misbehaviour. Thus we have a situation in which serious allegations are made. They are taken so seriously by the Government that the Attorney-General goes off and talks to the judge on two occasions. The Government sends some of the material to Stewart and some of it to Redlich. It appoints a joint Commonwealth-State task force. Some of the material is sent to the New South Wales Solicitor-General. Yet in the face of all this the Premier of New South Wales says they are phoney tapes, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) says they are fakes and Senator Evans wanders around saying that they have not been authenticated. If they were so fake and so phoney the Government would not have gone to such extraordinary lengths. Ultimately, the Government wants to reduce the role of this Parliament to that of a total cipher. That is a role which this Opposition totally and comprehensively rejects in this debate. We assert fundamentally the role of this Parliament and the supremacy of this Parliament over the Executive to make a judgment on the merits of this particular issue and to undertake a proper investigation and a proper inquiry as to whether, in fact, the allegations raised by these taped materials are true. I want to develop for a moment this whole question of the role of the Parliament and the proper procedures that ought to be adopted. In that context I want to say one or two things about the double standards of this Government. It is very instructive that the present Attorney-General in April 1980, when he was the shadow Attorney-General, moved a motion in the Senate. That motion was directed against the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick. That motion dealt with the question of judicial bias. Honourable members will remember that it related to allegations that in some way Sir Garfield Barwick had been a judge in his own cause and that in some way the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia -- Mr Holding —Not by us. Mr HOWARD —Let me say this: They were matters that the then shadow Attorney- General believed could be properly raised. He alleged at the time that the then Chief Justice of the High Court should never have sat on certain cases because they could in some way have borne upon interests close to those of the then Chief Justice of the High Court. Senator Evans at that time was then properly asserting the principle that a judge should never be a judge in his own cause and, even further, that he should never act in a way that he appeared to the public to be a judge in his own cause. It is worth while reading what Senator Evans said on that occasion. He said: But I regard it as proper and appropriate that there be conducted into these outstanding matters a full inquiry of a kind that only a joint select committee, with all the procedures at its disposal, would allow. Indeed, only such an inquiry would give a full opportunity to the Chief Justice to put on record not just some of the matters which might be thought to bear upon this question . . . He went on to say: In the same way the rule that a judge may not sit to hear a case if it might reasonably be considered that he could not bring a fair and unprejudiced mind to the decision applies to every court in Australia. He said further: The view that a judge should not sit to hear a case if in all the circumstances the parties or the public might reasonably suspect that he was not unprejudiced and impartial and that if a judge does sit in those circumstances prohibition will lie, is not only supported by the balance of authority as it now stands but is correct in principle. That was the principle being asserted by Senator Evans in 1980 in relation to the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. I agree with the principle that was enunciated by Senator Evans. I raise the fundamental question of whether that principle has some relevance to the issue now before us, because it is very interesting that one of the matters that have been raised by the Attorney-General is that during his discussions with the Federal judge in question that judge raised the question of legal professional privilege. He said that some of the material in the tapes may well have been covered by legal professional privilege. Of course, we all know that those discussions took place several weeks ago and that the question of legal professional privilege was raised. I offer no opinion as to whether a valid claim of legal professional privilege arises, but the claim was in fact made by the Federal judge in question. Arising out of that I asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether the Government was satisfied that in making that claim there was no possibility that the judge may have sat on a case which involved the question of legal professional privilege. The honourable member replied that he was so satisfied. In saying that, what the honourable gentleman was really arguing, as I understand it, was that either the judge in question had never sat on a case involving legal professional privilege, or alternatively he was perfectly satisfied that at the time he sat on that case he had no knowledge at all of the existence of these tapes. I would have thought that if the judge in question were making a claim of legal professional privilege in relation to material in the tapes, if in fact that judge had sat on a case which involved the doctrine of legal professional privilege after the judge had become aware of the existence of the tapes, there may well be a case to invoke the principle that a judge should never sit or be seen to sit as a judge in his own cause. It is very instructive that on 26 October the person in question was in the majority in a High Court decision of Baker v. Campbell. That decision involved a major extension of the doctrine of legal professional privilege. I think one of the questions that the House would like to know, and one of the things that would be pursued and raised by an inquiry, is whether in fact at the time the judge gave that decision he knew of the existence of the tapes. I do not know. Dr Theophanous —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. You have previously ruled on this question, and I ask you once again to refer to the material just presented by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me to be clearly impugning the integrity of a Federal judge and therefore contrary to the rules and procedures of this Parliament unless a substantive motion is put forward. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Burke raises the question of substantive motions. I have made a previous explanation. It is a difficult decision from the Chair. It is true that criticism must be raised by way of a substantive motion. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has evaded that direct criticism and direct identification, and I am bound by the Standing Orders to give the interpretation. Mr HOWARD —Let me make this quite clear. I raised the question. I assert that the judge in question sat on this case. I do not know whether at the time he participated in and delivered the judgment on 26 October 1983 he knew of the existence of these tapes. I put to the House that if it were to have an inquiry it might find out. That is precisely the reason why the procedure adopted by this Government is totally inadequate. Mr Lionel Bowen —What would it prove? Mr HOWARD —It might prove that he may have been a judge in his own cause. Mr Lionel Bowen —Ha, ha! Mr HOWARD —The honourable member says, 'Ha, ha!'. In fact- Mr Lionel Bowen —What are the facts of the case? Mr HOWARD —I will tell the Deputy Prime Minister the facts of the case, which involved legal and professional privilege-- Mr Lionel Bowen —What is the name of the case? Mr HOWARD —Baker v. Campbell. Before the honourable member gets too excited, I have a copy of the judgment and he can have copies for all his colleagues if he wants them. The important thing, leaving aside the interjection of the Deputy Prime Minister, is that it is a proper inquiry to make. I do not know whether the gentleman in question was aware of the existence of the tapes on 26 October 1983. I do know, and I have no better authority than the Prime Minister, that these tapes were made four or five years ago. I also know that in the New South Wales Parliament the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran, quoted with approval from the results of a test that had been made on these tapes by a person by the name of Collins. That test was conducted under instruction from a firm of Canberra solicitors and Mr Collins used to be employed at the Australian National University. He is now employed in Adelaide. He resigned from the Australian National University in 1980. One must therefore ask-I think it is a reasonable question; I do not make the allegation, I ask the question-did the Federal judge in question have any knowledge of the existence of those tapes when on 26 October 1983 he delivered the judgment in the case of Baker v. Campbell? There is nothing in the explanation given by the Government or in its handling of this issue which has in any way provided an answer to that question. I put to the House that that is a classic illustration of why this Parliament should exercise the role given to it by the Constitution. If we are to get to the bottom of this matter and, in the words of the present Attorney-General in 1980 give the judge in question an opportunity of giving his side of the story, we ought to have a proper inquiry. I quote with approval the attitude taken by Senator Gareth Evans in April 1980. He was quite correct in saying then that that was the correct way of handling such a matter. The Government in its handling of this issue will deny us the opportunity of doing that. I would like to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister, who is the Minister representing the Attorney-General, on this issue. I would like him to tell us whether he knows whether the judge in question knew of the existence of those tapes when he participated in delivering that judgment. Unless the honourable gentleman can do that he will demonstrate the total inadequacy of the procedures adopted by this Government and he will compound the contempt that the Government is displaying for the Parliament with the political conspiracy that we all know exists between the Premier of New South Wales and the Prime Minister. We know that over the next two or three weeks the Prime Minister will be Wran's man, and we all know that when Mr Wran faces the judgment of the people of New South Wales not only will they have in mind the events of the last few days but also they will remember Rex Jackson, Mervyn Wood, Bill Allen and all those other events which occurred in New South Wales. They will know darn well that over the years the Liberal Opposition in New South Wales which has raised such matters has been demonstrated to be absolutely correct. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.16) —I support the amendment moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which certainly guarantees that this Opposition ought to be censured. Here today we have just heard a speech from the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong!(Mr Howard). Mr Peacock —Censored? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is right. The honourable member should have listened to his colleague, the honourable member for Bennelong, who made an impassioned speech on the basis that there must have been something wrong with the judgment given in a case called Baker v. Campbell. Mr Howard —There was nothing wrong with the judgment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, there was. The honourable member brought up the issue that the judge must have been affected by some knowledge that he would have had of the tapes. Mr Howard —I did not say that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, the honourable member did. It was a majority judgment of four judges of the High Court. Is the honourable member suggesting that the other three judges were also crook? Does he not know what the issue of privilege was in that case? It was the question of a document and legal advice being given to a client. Is the honourable member suggesting that this case should be equated with the tape situation? The honourable member should not be allowed out in the legal profession. He will be a danger to anybody if he argues in that manner. We will have a look at a comparable situation. The honourable member was worried about what the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said about the former Chief Justice in what we know as the Mundroola case. In the Mundroola case, the Chief Justice was a director of the proprietary company, a shareholder in the proprietary company and it had shares in at least three other major companies, including Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, CSR Ltd and one other. Those three companies took taxation cases to the High Court and Barwick sat in judgment on those cases. Does the honourable member say that that is a comparable and fair thing to do when one is a shareholder in a company which would get the beneficial interest of one's judgment? The honourable member cannot answer. He knows jolly well that no judge can sit on a case in which he has a pecuniary interest. Why does the honourable member not deal with the issue ? Mr Howard —Answer the question. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have answered the question. The honourable member should start answering a few questions about the bottom of the harbour scheme and the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member should not laugh. I was referring to a team of criminals. The honourable member for Bennelong, who was then the Treasurer, got evidence from Mr O'Reilly, the Commissioner of Taxation, that massive corruption was going on involving straw companies which evaded tax and were sent to the bottom of the harbour. What did the honourable member do about it? Nothing. When the honourable member saw the McCabe-Lafranchi report- Mr Hodgman —It has nothing to do with this motion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It has everything to do with integrity, credibility-- Mr Hodgman —What about the judge claiming privilege of the Attorney-General? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have some protection from this lunatic opposite? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat and not interject. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am talking about the facts so let us stick to the facts. The painters and dockers were shown as the criminals they are. The tax evasion was enormous. A report was given to the honourable member for Bennelong in 1978. He did nothing about it. This nation was defrauded of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. The honourable member for Bennelong came into Parliament when the McCabe-Lafranchi report was brought down and said it was a political exercise. Mr Tuckey —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister has now involved himself in tax evasion and avoidance by supporting the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in this place. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Bennelong made the point that somebody in the High Court had done the wrong thing but that it was not Chief Justice Barwick. Let us examine some of the conduct of the honourable member in relation to matters of which he alone had knowledge. When we come to the responsibility of members of parliament, which is what basically these matters are all about, where does the Opposition stand in regard to giving the judiciary the independence that it deserves? If a judge is a member of an Opposition party it is in order, no matter what the conduct might be. It is not in order when it comes to a judge who was a member of the Labor Party. That is the true position. Mr Peacock —Cut it out; that is not so. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Do not say: 'Cut it out'. The Leader of the Opposition would be the last to cut it out; he cut it in yesterday after Mr Lane decided to name the judge. At least the Leader of the Opposition displayed some integrity during the first week of the Parliament because he apparently could not bring himself to do what was done in the Queensland Parliament, but if what I hear today is true, that what was done in the Queensland Parliament was at his behest, he does not deserve any recognition as a man of integrity. Regrettably, what is happening here today probably will permanently damage the judiciary of this country. There is no point in running away from that. If we look at the speeches that were made when this Federation came into existence we see that the founding fathers were all talking about what was likely to happen if one allowed the judiciary to be dragged into political debate such as the Opposition has encouraged here today. This point was made by one of the speakers at the Constitutional Convention: If you give to the Federal Parliament the uncontrolled power of securing the removal of Judges by passing addresses for that purpose, you make the judicial position altogether insecure, and you undoubtedly place the Judiciary in a position in which they ought not to be placed. Nobody will any longer think of the judiciary as independent because honourable members opposite attempt all the time, by way of motions in this House, to bring members of the judiciary into disrepute. Last week it was a justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Mr Justice Cross. Mr Justice Cross had heard evidence from the Leader of the National Party who had made a number of very serious allegations that there had been a miscarriage of justice in New South Wales. Earlier Bob Bottom had made allegations about a lady magistrate who he said had not carried out her duties. An inquiry was held and when Mr Bottom was asked to give evidence he submitted that he had no evidence to offer and withdrew the allegation. We spent two days last week discussing the remarks of the Leader of the National Party, made prior to the investigation of Mr Bottom's statements, which had to be withdrawn. When the Leader of the National Party was asked about those accusations by the police officer who interviewed him within days of his making them, he had this to say: . . . I'm concerned- he was not protected at the time he made the statement- that as a result of giving it to you- that is, information- that I'm not going to get myself a writ because of what I have done and it therefore is a bit of a worry . . . What do honourable members suppose might have been the worry for the two people he named? The right honourable member has since come into this Parliament and said that he was right anyway, irrespective of the evidence that he might have given at the time in front of Mr Justice Cross. His Honour said of the right honourable gentleman-I think it was a very fair comment-that of course he had been under strain: A Federal Cabinet Minister charged with serious criminal conduct, who felt that circumstances obliged him to resign from the Ministry and whose prosecution had already commenced, can be pardoned for not thinking straight, for being confused , for misunderstanding anything said to him. That appears to be a permanent condition of the right honourable member. He never thinks straight, he is always confused and he always misunderstands the situation. Last week, under privilege of this Parliament, he said that Mr Coombs was a bad man, that Mr Waterhouse was obviously one of those fellows that you would not want to be associated with, all of these things that destroy the character of those people again. This Parliament is getting into a dreadful state, in regard to its being accepted as a reasonable forum where people who are elected to debate matters of importance to this nation. Today the issue relates to a tape, a tape that even the Leader of the National Party says of course is not the original one. That was one of the few clear statements made by him in recent days. It is not the original one; nobody can find it. That is the first thing to note. Secondly, it ought to be made very clear that, in regard to the discussion as to where the original one is, the National Times said that of course it was with the New South Wales police. Bob Bottom gave the information to the Age and it is believed he got the material from somewhere in the New South Wales police force. It is four or five years old . Of course Bob Bottom cannot afford to divulge any information, because under the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act, which was passed by honourable members opposite when they were in government, if he does divulge information collected in this way he is liable to two years imprisonment. There must be an understanding that when we pass laws we cannot exempt from their benefit members of the judiciary, or honourable members either. Where are the rights of privacy in this country if people can intercept telephone calls, make tapes of them and then hawk them around to newspapers, obviously for monetary gain? Honourable members opposite then say: 'There must be something in this; there is at least a lot of political advantage in it. The unfortunate judge used to be a member of the Australian Labor Party'. That demonstrates the standard of the debate. Never mind about the integrity or independence of the judiciary; never mind about what Isaacs and others were saying in 1900 to the effect that we must at least try to keep the judiciary independent of the day to day thrust of politics. Look at the way in which the Opposition has tried to attack the Attorney-General today on the ground that he allegedly did something wrong, for example in the Sala case. That criminal was convicted, fined and ordered to be deported. There is nothing wrong with that. Mr Peacock —Was there a deportation order? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, a deportation order was made. He was in custody. All that happened was that he was given his passport and he had to pay his own fare and go. Mr Peacock —That deportation order was never executed? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It was in process. He was in custody. In fact, it was executed. As the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would know, any person in custody awaiting deportation can leave of his own free will. Why are honourable members opposite so worried about that issue? Mr Peacock —He cannot leave if he has not got a passport. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He had a passport when he came into the country. Mr Peacock —It was handed in. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The Chair has spoken to him three times. Mr Peacock —It was let go to the court of inquiry. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The House will come to order. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he is not entitled to any more courtesy from the Chair than is any other honourable member. The Chair expects courtesy from him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a case of the truth hurting. Let us consider the question of the solicitor who was named on the basis that he was a really bad character. I think that he has had one conviction, as a result of the present Attorney- General prosecuting him. The case is on appeal. He was committed for trial back in March 1982. Honourable members opposite might like to explain what happened that he was not brought to trial under the previous Government. What happened between March 1982 and March 1983? Mr Howard —The Executive does not control trials; the judiciary controls trials. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It does not? What about the Attorney-General? What about the submissions made to him? I will read from a list of them. Representations were made from a knight of the realm to the Prime Minister of the day, who admits that that happened. I will give this information to the honourable gentleman. The Attorney-General said in August that he had better get another counsel's opinion. Honourable members opposite should not try to exempt themselves from this too greatly. Representations were made by members of the parties opposite, which is fair, with the result that there was no prosecution at all until we came to office. Today honourable members opposite make accusations and say: ' What a dreadful thing it is'. Mr Steele Hall —That is not so. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is true. I will show the sheet to the honourable member round behind the chair in a minute if he wants to look at it. He should not try to bluff his way out of it. The facts are that that is the man for whom honourable members opposite are suggesting there was a cover-up. If there was any cover up-I do not suggest there was-certainly Senator Durack did nothing about it for 18 months. That is the point. Let us get back to what really concerns this country, and that is the economy, unemployment and advantages to people outside this place. Let us not engage in this muckraking that goes on here which denies any citizen the chance to maintain his privacy or position in life because everybody outside this place, whether he is a member of parliament or a member of the judiciary, is vulnerable to the malicious attacks that members of the Opposition make on him. Honourable members opposite deserve to be censured. In fact, it is a wonder that any of them will ever be re-elected on the basis of their standards. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.31) —This whole issue of profound seriousness is being treated in a very cavalier fashion by the Government. The truth of the matter is that the Age tapes will not go away. The controversy surrounding the Age tapes will not go away. As much as the Government hopes that this matter will go away it is not going to go away. The Government is burying its head in the sand if it thinks it is all going to go away or that it can sweep it under the rug. It is not just a question of what the Government hopes might happen. It is a question of what should happen and of what the Government's responsibilities are. The Government's responsibility is to make sure that the integrity, the reputation and the standing of the High Court of Australia are not damaged. The Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) a moment ago expressed great concern about the integrity of the judiciary and the importance of preserving that integrity. There is no more important institution in this country than the High Court. The Court has been held in high regard because of that integrity and because the people who have served on that Bench have been fine Australians. But the Government's responsibility today is to make sure that the faith and the confidence which the Australian people have had, and should have, in the High Court is not undermined. Yet, that is what will happen. The High Court's standing will be undermined and its reputation will be diminished if the Government does not have an open independent inquiry into the contents of the Age tapes and the transcripts. The Government will not get away with trying to push it under the rug as happened in the Watergate case. The more the Government tries to cover up the more the material will seep out day by day, week by week and month by month. The material is damaging and dangerous. It is damaging to those people involved. In the interests of justice the Hawke Government must face up to its responsibility to have the material properly and openly investigated. The sooner the Government realises that the better and the sooner will the damage that has been done to the High Court's integrity be ended. What the Government must understand is that the matter of the behaviour of a person holding high judicial office is an extremely serious and important one. It goes to the integrity and the reputation not only of the person concerned but also of the institution itself. There is something else that the Government must acknowledge. It is not just a question, as the Government would have us believe, of the absence or otherwise of criminal action. It is not just a question, as the Government would have us believe, of the absence or otherwise of behaviour which is improper in constitutional terms. It is a question of the total behaviour of the person concerned. A person holding high judicial office must observe the highest standards of behaviour and propriety. A person holding such an office must observe higher standards of behaviour and propriety than others. A judge sits in judgment on his fellow citizens. He is not, as the Government would have us believe, just another citizen. He is placed by the community in a position above his fellow citizens in that he is called upon to judge them and their actions. Therefore, he himself must observe standards of behaviour that are absolutely beyond reproach and question. Yet, what do we find in the present case? Let us look at some of the things that Mr Temby said. I remind the House that the Government has relied very heavily on Mr Temby's views, as indeed does the Opposition. However, I find it strange that there is no indication that he investigated the two allegations of interference with the normal processes of government. I refer to his opinion at the end of which he said: If any aspect of the matter appears to have received insufficient attention, or if any questions arise, I will be pleased to address them. The truth of the matter is that the material in the National Times has mentioned two specific things that have not been addressed by Mr Temby. The two substantial allegations in the National Times relate to interference with the course of natural justice. The first allegation is that on 24 March 1980 the judge rang the solicitor and discussed a possible malicious prosecution action and the second allegation is that on 2 April 1980 the judge rang the solicitor's wife to suggest that the solicitor get a member of the New South Wales Government to say that he has made inquiries into the solicitor and that he has come up 'smelling like a rose'. That was the term he used. I question why Mr Temby has not investigated those two serious allegations. I challenge him now in his office to investigate them forthwith because I believe that unless he does so he is failing in his entrusted duty. Mr Temby also said: It places a judge in an invidious position if he has frequent dealings with any person of poor reputation. Presumably (the Judge) now realises this and will act more carefully in the future than he has done in the past. He goes on to say: If there is doubt in this regard, it may be that he should be approached and advised as to the desirability of not further nurturing the relationship he has with (the solicitor) if it presently remains on foot. That is an extraordinary thing for Mr Temby to have to submit in his opinion. Surely this brings us to the very important element of this whole matter. It is not just a question of the presence or absence of criminal action. It is not just a question of the presence or absence of action that is improper in terms of the Constitution. It is a question of the whole behaviour and conduct of a person who occupies high judicial office and who sits in judgment on his fellow citizens. There are other standards of behaviour to be observed and to be met as well as those which relate to criminal or constitutionally improper behaviour. As Dr Paul Gerber said this morning on the A.M. program: On any view, if the allegations are genuine, the judge has evinced mortal foibles . . . of a kind which we do not expect our judges to indulge in. Given that, and placing the judiciary above one's personal standing, there is a great deal to be said for resignation. He said that there was a great deal to be said for resignation. I do not know how the Government can ignore the sorts of things that are being said by responsible people in this community. However, Dr Gerber also pointed out, as I do, that no matter how one turns the judge's conversation and the language used and no matter in what context one puts them, they fall below the level of what we would expect our judiciary to be. He goes on to say that judges are made of flesh and blood, 'but once they take judicial office they assume a degree of probity, rightly so, I think, which does not entitle them to the kind of eccentricities which are revealed in these tapes'. The Opposition does not accept the Government's bland assertion that the views expressed by various eminent legal authorities, whom we respect just as much as the Government does, are the end of this very serious matter. The Constitution provides that it is for the Parliament to decide questions of judicial conduct in constitutional terms. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) told us, and has told us ad nauseam, that the tape recordings were made illegally, that the recordings of the transcripts have not been authenticated and that people's privacy has been invaded. All these things may be said, but they raise very serious issues. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied-and the Prime Minister cannot escape the fact- that no matter how the recordings were obtained they do reveal matters which must be resolved. Irrespective of whether they are illegal recordings, irrespective of whether they have been substantiated and even though they have been invasions of privacy, there are questions to be answered and very serious questions indeed. The existence of the factors of which the Prime Minister complains does not remove the burden resting on the Government-and I say the Prime Minister of this nation-to take proper and urgent action, if we are to have any credibility left in the judiciary and in legal and respectable circles. The fact that there have been illegalities and invasions of privacy-reprehensible though those things are -does not diminish or wash away the seriousness of the behaviour that has been revealed. This is why we demand that the Government allow the Parliament to have the information it needs and to make the decision that has to be made if this matter is not to drag on and on, and I suggest drag down the institution of the High Court. Further than that, we are all entitled to expect in our judges the highest standards of integrity and probity, in the legal or any other sense. This is why , as I asked in Parliament yesterday, the judge should stand down until the doubts surrounding his behaviour have been resolved. The Government seems hell bent on frustrating the proper courses of action which should be followed in the matter. The Opposition has suggested a number of courses which should be followed, but in every case the Government has stubbornly refused to agree. In refusing I believe the Government has caused further great damage to the reputation of the High Court, leaving, rightly or wrongly, the reputation of the judge in tatters. Yesterday I asked the Deputy Prime Minister to ask the Attorney-General to consult the Chief Justice on the question of whether the judge should stand down until doubts about his suitability for high judicial office were resolved. The Government refused to agree. Mr Hodgman —Shame. Mr HUNT —It is a shame. The Government has been asked by the Opposition to table in the Parliament, even with the names erased, the transcripts and the taped telephone calls which lie at the heart of this matter. This would have allowed the Parliament to examine the material for itself and to make up its own mind, but the Government has refused to agree. The Opposition has asked the Government to agree to set up a joint parliamentary committee to examine the matter, but the Government has refused to agree. We asked for a royal commission to investigate the matter, but the Government has refused to agree. Every time the Government has refused to agree to these requests I believe it has dug itself deeper into its own quagmire. Every time the Government has refused to agree it has guaranteed the prolongation of this mess. That is bad, not only for the Government but also for the individuals involved. It is bad for the High Court, bad for the Parliament and bad for this nation as a whole. It is no use the Government simply blasting the Opposition. The fact is that serious doubt does exist about the suitability of a most senior member of the judiciary of the High Court of Australia to occupy his place on that bench. That doubt is not fictitious. It is not a figment of somebody's imagination. No one has conjured it up out of thin air. The assertions are there; the doubt exists. It is real enough and substantial enough for the Government to have gone to great lengths to try to keep it under wraps. It is real enough for the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) to have spoken twice about it to the judge concerned. It is real enough for the Government to have set up a special task force for the New South Wales Government to investigate matters revealed in the tapes. It is real enough for the Government to have asked Mr Temby for his views on the material and its implications. It is real enough for the Government to have asked the Solicitor-General for his views. Yet, despite all that acknowledgement, the Government is not serious about the matter at all. It is trying to cover up. It is trying to cover up a very serious situation that does have great and very deep implications for the institutions of this country and for decent and proper behaviour in this Parliament. It has covered up every possible avenue because it has an election in New South Wales on 24 March and it is dead scared, as Nifty is dead scared, that it will be caught out. I believe the Government has been caught out and I do not believe it will get away with this great cover-up. It is the Government's Watergate and it will come to haunt it until the next election day. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.46) —I oppose this motion of censure of the Government which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and seconded by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). What I think needs to be understood is that no government and no opposition can mount an attack in parliament without any credibility. What became evident in this supposed attack upon the Government today is that the Opposition lacks credibility on any issue when it comes before the Parliament. We have the Leader of the Opposition, failing and under scrutiny by his colleagues, turning in another incompetent and uncompelling performance and being watched critically by his colleagues, followed by the Leader of the National Party, who is now held in such ridicule and contempt by every other member of the Parliament that he is the brunt of all the jokes in the Parliament. He is laughed at, scoffed at and ridiculed for the position which he takes, for having the indecency to talk about the standards of decency, propriety and integrity of the judiciary when just a week ago, after a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court found against charges he made against two individuals in New South Wales and the New South Wales Labor Party, after a judge of the Supreme Court found there was no basis to the allegations, the same person, the Leader of the National Party, who is today talking about the integrity of the judiciary, was viciously attacking the integrity of Mr Justice Cross on evidence and testimony which the right honourable gentleman himself had tendered before Mr Justice Cross's Commission. How can anybody on this side of the House take seriously anything the Opposition says? The Leader of the Opposition is trying desperately to hold on to his job. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) is sitting back knowing that the honourable member for Kooyong, the Leader of the Opposition, is simply going to wear himself out on a popular Prime Minister. The Leader of the National Party is talking about decency. This is the man who ripped off a family business of which his father was the accountant. This is the man who found $500, 000 in his father's estate and would not have given a penny of it back but for the fact that the son of an incapacitated man who was a member of the family business put on a public turn and dragged the matter into the House of Representatives. Otherwise there would have been no inquiry in New South Wales and he would have stuck to the half a million dollars. This is the same man who claimed fraudulent misappropriation deductions against the tax of that company when he knew full well that the fraudulent misappropriation had in fact occurred at the hands of his own father. Now he gets up here and talks to us about decency. Look at the attack on Mr Ducker, who had never had his integrity impugned anywhere by anybody, who has been appointed to the Board of Qantas Airways Limited. Whom did Mr Sinclair, who attacked Mr Ducker today, have appointed to the Board of Qantas? It was Mr Harry Miller, who was tried and convicted and served a penal sentence, and who had to remove himself from the Qantas Board because he was tried and convicted and served a penal sentence. Yet we have this piece of vermin, the Leader of the National Party, here today attacking Mr Ducker on his position as Chairman-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will withdraw that remark. Mr KEATING —I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. He got up in here today and attacked Mr Ducker on his position as a member of the Board of Qantas. Then there are the attacks on the judiciary and the integrity of the judiciary. He attacked Mr Justice Cross here last week in a most infamous way. In fact, nobody in the Parliament has seen such an infamous and scurrilous attack upon an individual member of the judiciary. He is a judge of 25 years' standing. He has never had a criminal case overturned by a higher court of appeal. Does the Opposition really think that the Government of Australia, the Government Party and the people of Australia will be impressed by an attack led by people of this calibre. I have nothing but pity and shame for the Leader of the Opposition who could have exercised a veto over Mr Sinclair's election as Leader of the National Party of Australia but who was prepared to be silent and see him elected and to see the credibility of his whole Opposition damned every time it opens its mouth. The old saying that if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas could never be more appropriate, more apt, or more true than in the case of the relationship between the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party in this place. Whatever integrity the Leader of the Opposition deserves to have attached to his name, it has been diminished and discounted by his tawdry, unseemly relationship as the Coalition leader with the Leader of the National Party in this place. Opposition members should not talk to us about integrity or about the judiciary . They would do anything. They are trying now to attack the reputation of a judge when they know full well that, because the Constitution made it quite clear that there is a separation of power between the Parliament and the judiciary, there is only a very narrow basis upon which any member of the judiciary can ever be judged or removed in this place on the question of proved misbehaviour. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) made it quite clear in his address that the basis of that removal, that proved misbehaviour, is some misbehaviour in the execution of his judicial office of which obviously in this case there could be none or criminal misconduct of the kind that would remove him from office. We have opinions from the Solicitor-General, Mr Temby, and the New South Wales Solicitor-General that there could be no such basis for seeking to remove a judge from the High Court of Australia. The Opposition knows that well. But it is back in here with this sleazy proposal to try to drag the whole judiciary of Australia into disrepute. Opposition members refer to themselves as the people of the establishment party ; the people who do the right thing. They claim to be the people who set the standards. In 1975 they all but destroyed the constitutional set up in Australia and the position of Governor-General. Now, apparently, they are bent upon destroying the independence of the Australian judiciary and, particularly, the High Court. What if we were to take the view as a Labor Government, that we should start to attack a Liberal appointee to the High Court of Australia, not from the position of an opposition which cannot deliver the numbers in here but from the position of government. What if we took the unprincipled and biased attitude that Opposition members take and we attacked a Liberal appointee of the High Court? What hope would there be for the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. Mr Howard —You did it. Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said we did it. He knows that the Deputy Prime Minister, (Mr Lionel Bowen) made quite clear the basis upon which the complaint was laid in the Senate against the former Chief Justice as a shareholder of a company. So Opposition members should not come that tawdry line with us. The fact is that they are the thugs of Australian politics. They are the constitutional vandals of Australia. They are greedy for power. They would rip up the Constitution, attack any convention or any individual to get their own way. Every 18 months that the former Labor Government was in office, the Opposition tried to refuse Supply in the Senate. Opposition members know that the only way to attack a competent Labor Government is to throw the smear. That is what they are doing now. They are attempting, while they are doing it though, to attack the independence of the judiciary because they do not care what they claw down and they do not care what they destroy to try to get their own way. It is our role as the Government of Australia to protect the High Court of Australia against lunatics and fools like members of the Opposition who would put the whole constitutional fabric of Australia at risk. We are not prepared to bring tapes in here without transcripts or transcripts without tapes. We are not prepared to bring them in here without any authentication or without any information. Why would we bring them in here? Would we set up a kangaroo court so the Opposition could attack a judge on the miserable basis that he has associations with the Australian Labor Party? The Opposition should look at the behaviour of its own members over the years. Mr Ellicott, as Attorney-General, sat for five months on a Cabinet decision to pay the defendants in the Sankey case. I have no doubt that Mr Ellicott's behaviour-I have said this to him-sent Mr Connor to his grave. I said that to his face in this Parliament and I will say it again. All Opposition members who were members of that Government did that to that man. They have nothing to hold their heads up about. This motion is all about the New South Wales election. Opposition members talk about what is wrong in New South Wales. Mr Steele Hall —If you want to bring in Neville Wran-- Mr KEATING —The honourable member has been in so many parties, he is a complete political harlot. The honourable member should not tell us about his-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Steele Hall —I will not stand here and take this from him. Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer will resume his seat. If the honourable member for Boothby had given me the opportunity I was going to ask the Treasurer to withdraw that remark as being quite offensive. Mr KEATING —In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw. I make this clear: The last three charges against the New South Wales Government included the attack on Mr Wran on the Four Corners program. As Premier, he submitted himself to a Royal Commission and was cleared absolutely. The second charge was the charge by Mr Sinclair, the Leader of the National Party, against Mr Waterhouse, Mr Coombs and the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. The judgment was that there was no case to answer and the allegations fell to the ground. Then there were Mr Bottom's allegations against a magistrate in New South Wales which were finally withdrawn. The New South Wales Government knows that it will continue to receive smears, filth and innuendo from the scum of the Liberal Party. The New South Wales Government makes it quite clear that it will not fall to pieces under these sorts of attacks. It has done the only thing possible and that is to go to an election and let the New South Wales public judge. The Opposition is afraid of the public of New South Wales. It is afraid that its lousy miserable tactics, whether they are those of the Federal Opposition, those of Mr Greiner or his deputy in New South Wales or those of whoever does its bidding, will fail and the New South Wales Labor Government will be back in office for a further four years. That is what will happen. No amount of antics by the Opposition in this Parliament or the Leader of the Opposition's machinations with Mr Lane of the Queensland Parliament and the repeat of the 1975 performance of Mr Bjelke- Petersen alleging kickbacks by Mr Connor and Dr Cairns will do anything to impress the New South Wales public or this Parliament that the New South Wales Government should not be re-elected. Quite reasonably, Mr Wran has said: 'Enough is enough. I am not subjecting my Government to any more inquiries. We will not go on in this way, being cleared but when we are cleared having the Leader of the National Party simply repeat the charges in the national Parliament. We will not put up with the behaviour of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or anybody else. We will allow the people to make a judgment'. My view is that when the people make a judgment they will return the New South Wales Labor Government to office. They will reject absolutely the slimy, mealy- mouthed charges laid by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and the discredited Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the former Treasurer who sat still while the tax avoidance industry ripped the Commonwealth off for billions. They will reject their view and elect the New South Wales Government back to the office which it deserves. This Parliament will protect the Australian judiciary and the integrity of the High Court as long as it has the political power to do so. We do not accept the proposal. We treat it with the contempt that it deserves. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, 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, John 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.Child, J. Mildern, 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.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. 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.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.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) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O' Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.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.Hawker, D. P. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Hawke's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, 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, John 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.Child, J. Mildern, 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.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. 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.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.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) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O' Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.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.Hawker, D. P. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Peacock's), as amended, be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, 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, John 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.Child, J. Mildern, 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.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. 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.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.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) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O' Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Proter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.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.Hawker, D. P. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I ask that all questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976, I present the Australia-Japan Foundation annual report for 1982-83. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members I present the first report of the Interim Council of the Australian Defence Force Academy. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 16 (2) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, I present the annual report for 1982-83 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority, dealing with the general administration and working of that Act, and of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 for the year ended 30 June 1983. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-Last year the Government established the practice of announcing its legislation program at the start of each period of sittings. It remains our view that the Parliament and the Australian people should know about the program at an early stage. We believe that an informed and open public debate about major national issues is an essential ingredient for effective government. In this way members of Parliament will be better informed and able to organise their own priorities and the community at large will be better able to understand the timing of the implementation of Government policy. The Government's legislation program for the current sittings is aimed at consolidating the record established last year for economic management and social reform. A number of the Government's priority objectives have already been achieved. Legislation, introduced last sittings, has recently been passed: To overcome the problems associated with sex discrimination; and to protect Australia's trading interests and policies against the extra- territorial enforcement of foreign laws and to strengthen anti-dumping procedures. In the Budget sittings last year we introduced Bills to: Facilitate the management of supplies of fuel in emergencies; establish a National Crime Authority; give effect to the Law Reform Commission recommendations for the insurance industry; enable ratification of the Torres Strait treaty; and remove discrimination in relation to citizenship between British subjects and other immigrants; The Government attaches importance to these elements of its program and debate will be resumed on these matters during these sittings. It has already been announced that the assets test legislation, also introduced last sitting, will be considered further by a consultative committee. I shall now outline briefly the new legislation which we intend to introduce. Welfare and Community Development As the first stage of national land rights proposals, Aboriginal heritage protection legislation will be introduced relating to sacred sites and objects. This measure will ensure a consistent national approach to site and object protection. Further land rights legislation may also be introduced if time permits. Legislation already introduced gives legislative backing to Aussat Pty Ltd as a publicly owned company and allows Telecom Australia to hold a percentage of Aussat shares and persons using the satellite system to erect their own Telecommunications facilities related to the satellite. Legislation is also expected to be introduced to re-establish the Curriculum Development Centre and establish an Australian National Gallery Fund by which non-government moneys can be accepted and invested. Environment The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act will be amended to implement Government policy including its response to the recommendations of a number of parliamentary reports. The changes will increase the opportunities for public participation in Commonwealth environmental assessment and provide a better basis for reconciling economic and environmental considerations. Related legislation will assist in the protection of people and the environment from damage caused by various contaminants. It will provide for an assessment of the hazards involved in new chemicals being introduced into Australia and for the regulation of chemical substances. Another measure being considered would regulate the development of tourist structures beyond the limits of the territorial sea. Proposals have been put forward to develop resorts on the Great Barrier Reef. There is currently no legislation which could be used to adequately control such developments. Constitutional and Law Reform Major legislation in this area will:Establish an Australian Bill of Rights which will meet our international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and upgrade the structure, role, jurisdiction and enforcement powers of the Human Rights Commission. Further important measures will:Apply the new electoral laws to the conduct of referendums as relevant; establish the Australian Government Solicitor as a corporate body in place of the Crown Solicitor; and facilitate the use of extrinsic aids in statutory interpretation. Other legislation will:Establish a new federal guarding service; widen the High Court's powers to remit matters to other courts thus improving the efficiency of the judicial system; enable ratification of the Hague Convention on Marriage; give effect to international agreements on extradition; and allow confidentiality orders made on grounds of national security or to protect the safety of persons by Victorian criminal courts in proceedings arising out of the Sheraton Hotel incident to be enforced throughout Australia. Financial Measures In addition to the Appropriation and Supply Bills and important cost supplementation legislation for education, the Government will introduce a number of taxation measures including measures in relation to superannuation and taxation avoidance. Other legislation will:Enhance the Commonwealth's ability to collect air navigation charges; amend the co-operative companies and securities scheme to deal with registration of charges under the Companies Act and corporate membership of stock exchanges; and Implement a number of double taxation agreements. External Relations Bills will be introduced to:Appropriate funds for Australia's contribution to the International Development Association; Restrict the use of Australian passports to Australian citizens and remove the distinction between immigrants who are British subjects and those who are not; and register the deaths of Australians travelling overseas. Public Service The Government will introduce major legislation to implement its plans to reform the Australian Public Service. The statement of the Government's intentions which was issued in December 1983 has been the subject of wide- ranging consultations, and the package which will be introduced will provide for a more responsive, accountable and efficient Public Service employment which will be open to all Australian citizens on the basis of merit. Other measures will:Arise from any report of the Remuneration Tribunal which might follow the forthcoming national wage case; and update legislation relating to the Defence Force. Assistance to Industry Important measures relating to primary industry will:Restructure the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation to increase its effectiveness and restrict its role to commercially oriented activities; establish a meat livestock policy council and a joint industry selection committee to advise the Minister for Primary Industry on meat and livestock policy issues and on the composition of the Board of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation; provide assistance to the States for soil conservation; clarify the borrowing power of the Wool Corporation, which has already been introduced; provide for new arrangements for the sugar industry; and increase penalties for breaches of the Quarantine Act which again has already been introduced. Other measures will:Implement various bounty measures approved by the Government; correct problems in regard to sites for the retail marketing of petroleum; exempt small vessels from the requirement to register under the Shipping Registration Act; regulate patents with regard to micro- organisms; reform road contract tendering requirements; discourage the underlifting of indigenous crude oil and offset the cost of coastal freight paid on deliveries of crude oil; prevent unauthorised use of the Advance Australia logo; and update national measurement legislation. In addition the usual Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will include a number of matters of minor significance. As always, unforeseen circumstances may give rise to additional legislation and pressure on the Parliamentary Counsel and other people's time may not enable all matters to come forward as soon as we would like. In addition, the Government is still considering other reform measures which may result in legislation in the current sittings. But the program I have outlined continues the direction established by the Government in its first year and will put into effect a number of social, environmental, legal and institutional reforms to which the Government is strongly committed. I commend the Government's program to the House and look forward to the assistance of honourable members in its implementation. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.25) —by leave-I wish to say three things about the statement. First, while members of the Opposition welcome the general foreshadowing of the Government's program, I trust that this does not preclude the continued practice of making available in advance of each sitting fortnight the structure of the legislation which will be dealt with in that sitting fortnight. As members of this place know so well, it does help to have some idea of the pattern of legislation to be introduced, and I ask the Leader of the House (Mr Young) to give an assurance-- Mr Young —Tonight. Mr SINCLAIR —I thank the Leader of the House for that assurance. The second point is that in the normal course of debate these proposals would open up the same type of debate as is available in an address-in-reply debate or debate on the Budget. While on this occasion the Opposition does intend to take this advantage, it is of note that if the Government intends to cover the whole field of government activity obviously it should be cognisant of the fact that everybody is entitled to talk on any of the matters covered by any of the pieces of legislation which have been foreshadowed. In that respect, there are two notable omissions and a number of areas where very little has been said. The two notable omissions are that, while there is a reference to a group to be formed to consider the future of the assets test in determining pension entitlement, there is no legislation to remove the continued uncertainty that every pensioner in Australia has about what type of assets test will be introduced. Unless some legislation comes in under the qualifying clause at the end, this program will generate until the Budget session a continued feeling of uncertainty which I regard as totally unacceptable for those large numbers of Australians who are in receipt of a pension or about to become eligible for a pension and who still have no idea of the type of assets test that will prejudice their present or prospective entitlement. The second omission I am concerned about is that again there is nothing about Medicare and what the devil will happen in all those areas where the community at large is still plagued by very real uncertainty. I refer to the future availability of adequate care, for example, in nursing homes; the extent to which nursing home beds will continue to be made available; and the extent to which-I have had a number of personal representations about this-people subject to various types of mental illness have been excluded from hospitals simply because of the introduction of Medicare. They have not been resolved. Patients do not know what needs to be done to resolve the questions about the availability of the doctor of choice. None of those unanswered questions about nationalisation of medicine are covered by this legislation. In terms of specifics, again I note that there are two matters which illustrate just how paltry this information is. We are told that other measures will update legislation relating to the Defence Force. From my recollection, that contains volumes of some hundreds of pages. There is a whole series of Bills and we have no idea to what degree the legislation will deal with particular aspects. With regard to assistance to industry we are told that there will be new arrangements for the sugar industry. The sugar industry is in dire straits at the moment. Everyone in that belt of Australia dependent on the sugar industry for his livelihood is in a position of major uncertainty because the European Economic Community did not join the International Sugar Agreement and because of continued low prices. While that may provide solace for the Minister, it provides little solace for the cane growers to be told only that there will be legislation to provide new arrangements for the sugar industry. There is no talk of further financial assistance or of the character of the arrangements. This generates more doubts than enough. Finally, on the last page of the Minister's statement it is a case of errors and omissions excepted. We have been given a list of legislation but told that this may be changed. I appreciate that, in setting down the statement, the Minister is giving us some general directions. I just wish the directions were a little more precise and in a direction that those of us on this side of the House could support. Mr Howard —There has been an illusory projection of legislation like the illusory projection of the deficit. Mr SINCLAIR —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, there are a number of illusions about the whole of the schedule. Another area of interest to us and to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, of course, is that there is no document about the prospective deficit. That is a document we would be interested to have . I thank the Leader of the House for the indication that the program will still be made available before each fortnightly sitting period. Mr WILSON(Sturt) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WILSON —Yes, I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr WILSON —On Tuesday of this week in debate on the New South Wales Age tapes the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) claimed that I had not only accused a man called Volkman but I had also accused him of being guilty in the middle of his trial. After I had explained, following the debate, that at no time did I have ministerial responsibility for the Volkman case, the Deputy Prime Minister again claimed that I had said Volkman was guilty of bird smuggling. I have checked the Hansard. On 6 May 1982, while I was Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, I introduced the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Bill. Nowhere in my second reading speech did I accuse Volkman of being guilty or say that he was guilty of bird smuggling, as has been falsely claimed by the Deputy Prime Minister. I did not even mention his name. What I did say was this-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has put his personal explanation. He is now debating the issue. Mr WILSON —I do not think I have, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the charge made was a very serious one. I am not a member who would use this House to accuse a named person and to accuse that named person of being guilty. I think it is important that the facts be placed before the House. In my second reading speech as reported on page 2392 of the Hansard of 6 May 1982, I said: Some idea of the commercial pressures- this was in relation to illicit trade in wildlife- may be gained from the payments involved. An amount of $50,000 may be paid for a coat from the skin of an ocelot, or the rare snow leopard. Pairs of live Australian parrots are being sold for up to $10,000 overseas.In 1979, 900 Australian birds valued at more than $2m overseas were seized in Cairns by the Queensland police immediately prior to shipment. That was a statement of fact; it accused no one. It accused no one of being guilty. It certainly did not directly or indirectly accuse Volkman, nor did I mention his name or name anyone as being guilty of a conspiracy related to this most distasteful trade in Australia's precious fauna. The article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman, I think, has finished his personal explanation. Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Mr WILSON —I think there is one other matter that needs to be referred to, that is, the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister said that a case was aborted as a result of what I had said. I would like to quote from a newspaper report of what the judge said in that particular case. The lead-up and background to the case was that two years prior to it a report in one of the papers referred to the fact that there had been this $2m seizure. It read: The birds were packed sardine-like in containers marked 'computer parts'. Police alleged that a former Mafia boss Vincent Terese, had been involved. It was alleged that Mr Terese, who owned a bird shop in Seattle, had set up an organisation to smuggle and market the birds during a visit to Australia in 1977 . The judge, Mr Justice Miles, heard the case in Sydney following two newspaper reports in the Sydney Morning Herald, one a factual statement of the second reading speech introducing the Bill, the other an editorial article under the title 'Smugglers who prey on our fauna'. Neither of those articles referred to Volkman or named him or others involved in that case in any way. The Sydney Morning Herald reported: Justice Miles said he was not suggesting for a moment that any members of the jury would be affected by the articles 'But the administration of justice has its own reputation to protect. If I allowed the trial to continue in the light of these published articles it may well be said that the accused did not receive a fair trial'. So it was the court's caution to protect its reputation and to appear to be giving a fair trial as well as giving a fair trial that prompted the court to abort the trial. It was nothing to do with any statement I made as Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in introducing the legislation. That newspapers following the introduction of that legislation wrote editorial articles that were designed to publicise the proposed legislation and to express the newspaper 's concern about the illicit trafficking in no way can lead to the suggestion that I accused Volkman or accused him of being guilty. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that the Deputy Prime Minister should have made that allegation against me. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr MacKELLAR —Yes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr MacKELLAR —This morning on a radio program Mr Derryn Hinch, in discussing the vote taken in the House yesterday, referred to me. Whilst I did not hear the program myself, it has been reported to me that Mr Hinch said: 'Michael MacKellar, of course, when in the Fraser Government once referred to keeping women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen'. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have no recollection of ever using that phrase as a Minister or in a ministerial statement. In my time as Minister for Immigration, of course, I did draw attention to the declining birthrate in Australia at that particular time. But this seriously misrepresents the point of view I put forward at that stage. I am having searches made through any of the speeches I made during my period as Minister. I have no recall of ever using a phrase of that nature in any of those speeches. Certainly it does not represent my view. Ministerial Statement Mr KERIN —(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)-by leave-This Bill was introduced to the House on 16 November 1983 by the Acting Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Hurford). It has recently been the subject of considerable debate in the Senate, which has deferred further consideration of the Bill until May 1984. I have sought leave from the House to state the history and purpose of the Bill and to clarify the object and effect of its clauses. Leave to make this statement is sought as I am concerned that users of the Export Inspection Service may have been confused about the true nature of the Bill and its effect on their legal obligation to pay inspection charges. It would hardly be surprising if some members of the industry were confused, given statements in the Senate on 29 February this year. Senator Macklin has acknowledged that, after hearing the National Party contribution to the debate, he is confused about precisely why the Opposition had moved to defer consideration of the Bill until May. Yet, incredibly, the Australian Democrats combined with the Opposition in their totally irresponsible move to defer consideration of the Bill. Even Senator Macklin understands that this Bill does not refer to the current charges. It does not refer to the Bills which were passed in the Senate on 14 September last year, Bills which enabled the implementation of the export inspection service 50 per cent cost recoupment policy of the previous Government; Bills which were supported by both the National Party and Liberal Party. It is now these very same parties which have joined with the confused Australian Democrats to defer this validation Bill with scant concern either for the industry to which it refers or to the need for the current Government to correct an oversight of the previous Government. On 1 January 1983 the Export Control Act 1982 came into effect. Because of the breadth of the changes made by that Act, a number of consequential amendments of other Acts were made by means of the Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982 at the same time. Part 17 of this Act amended the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979. The long title of the Act and the definition of 'Abattoir' in section 4 were changed to omit references to the Exports (Meat) Regulations that were repealed by regulation 2 of the Export Control (General) Regulations, these last regulations having been made under the Export Control Act, with effect from 1 January 1983. The new definition of 'Abattoir' in the Live-Stock Slaughter, (Export Inspection Charge) Act requires that premises used for the carrying on of operations in connection with the slaughter and dressing of animals from which meat that is intended for export is obtained be prescribed. The Minister for Primary Industry in the previous Government failed to have prescribed for the purposes of the Charge Act premises that are registered premises within the meaning of the Export Control Act. Notwithstanding this failure on the part of my predecessor, charges continued to be paid by industry and were collected by government. When the imperfection in the charging arrangements came to the notice of this Government, action was taken to correct the position with effect from 21 November 1983; action to validate a National Party Bill, a validation which that Party now, in the other place, seeks to defer. This, of course, is this very same National Party which, like a lost sheep, bleats out its hollow concerns for primary industries, industries which were allowed to decay under successive years of National Party maladministration and incompetence. I can only conclude that the prospect of successive years on the Opposition benches has even further dulled any sense of responsibility or integrity remaining in this group of desperate men lead by the supreme desperado of them all. The Bill will, if enacted, provide that the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act shall be deemed to have had effect, for all purposes, as if the regulations that came into effect on 21 November 1983 had come into effect on 1 January 1983. As a result, charges under the Act that have not been paid will be required to be paid. Where those charges related to livestock slaughtered between 1 January and 1 October 1983, the charges thus payable will be those introduced by the previous Government in 1979. Where those charges related to livestock slaughtered between 1 October and 20 November 1983 the charges payable will be those introduced by this Government on 1 October 1983. It has been stated at various times that the Bill should not be passed or should have its passage deferred. This stance has been taken on completely erroneous grounds and/or for totally irrelevant reasons, as the following paraphrased statements made in relation to the Bill and my corresponding comments indicate: The Bill is before Parliament because of increased inspection charges'. The 1 October 1983 charges did not lead to the introduction of the Bill; The Bill is before Parliament because of the High Court challenge foreshadowed by the Australian Meat Exports Federal Council to the charging legislation'. Suggestions of such action did not lead to the introduction of the Bill. It would have been indefensible if the Government had not sought to correct the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act after moneys were paid and collected under a mistake of law arising out of a technical deficiency in the scheme envisaged by the Act; The Bill is before Parliament in order to avert the aforementioned High Court challenge'. This legal action has not yet eventuated and I am not aware of the basis, if any, for such a legal challenge; Failure of Parliament to enact the Bill will lead to reduction in the present charges. The levels of the charges introduced on 1 October 1983 will not be changed retrospectively. It is true that I have requested the Interim Inspection Policy Council to carry out an examination of the costs of inspection which should be recovered from industry and for this examination to be completed by 1 May 1984. Any recommendations of the Council that are accepted by the Government will only be implemented prospectively. This means that industry has a legal obligation to pay the export inspection charges set by this Government in the 1983-84 Budget from 21 November 1983 onward. No good purpose will be served if misconceptions are fostered in the minds of producers and processors by ill-informed and/or irresponsible debate by the Opposition in the other place. These misconceptions may lead some sectors of the meat industry to take ill-advised action not to pay charges legally due. The Opposition should now publicly state that it will reimburse industry for any additonal charges and costs that might be incurred as a result of its total irresponsibility in deviously and maliciously seeking to defer the validation Bill. In summary, I can do no better than to repeat the unambiguous statement of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) in the other place. He said: The deferral or passage of this Bill will make absolutely no difference to the liability of any operator to pay the current charges. It is my earnest hope that this message is more clearly understood by the public in the process than it seems to have been by the Opposition. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —by leave-I can assure the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that this matter is very clearly understood by the public, the industry, and the unions involved in the industry, and it is certainly understood by the Opposition. What worries me is that it does not seem to be understood by some of the Minister's colleagues, who are guided by and dictated to by some of the so- called economic theorists who are employed by the Government and who probably sit around the Cabinet table. I can assure the Minister that there is nothing devious and malicious about the Opposition's efforts in seeking to defer the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill. The Opposition has opposed the passage of this Bill to draw attention to the massive slug that the Government is seeking to impose upon the meat industry. There is no doubt about it that. Mr Kerin —It is a separate issue. Mr HUNT —It is not a separate issue. I invite the Minister, during the New South Wales election, to go to Casino in his home State and talk to the general manager, to the union representatives and to the meat industry people. Mr Kerin —It has nothing to do with it. Mr HUNT —Yes, it has. We understand, and the industry understands too well that this Bill does not relate to current charges, but it is designed to correct a defect in the existing legislation and will affect charges for the past. We also understand, as does the industry, that the slug which the Government seeks to impose on the industry is completely unrealistic. Mr Porter —A 200 per cent increase. Mr HUNT —Yes. I will read the figures out for the honourable member. The Government last year announced that it was raising the export inspection charge from $1.80 a head to $5.40 for cattle and from 60c to $1.60 for pigs. The Opposition parties responded with deep concern and with the concern of the meat industry by calling on the Government to take a more reasonable approach. The Government makes much of the fact that the previous Government had a policy of recovering 50 per cent of export inspection charges, but we made it very clear that while the meat industry was in serious difficulties and suffering low prices we would not move immediately to that level of recovery of export inspection charges. It was to try to bring home to the Government the need for it to exercise some moderation and to try to persuade the Government to sit down with the industry and the unions and listen to their concerns and work out some acceptable argument that we opposed the passage of the Bill last year. There is no misconception in the minds of the Opposition about that matter. I recall that when the former Leader of the National Party of Australia, the Rt Hon. J.D. Anthony, spoke here on this Bill on 30 November last year he said that no one was against the validation Bill and that the Opposition would not block it indefinitely. Mr Anthony went on to call for some reasonableness on the part of the Government, and that is what our concern is about. We believe, and the industry believes, that a 200 per cent increase in fees is outrageous by any standard. The Government would not be doing it to any other section of the community. The Minister goes out there and poses as a great friend of the farmers of this country but will not get down and fight for them. I urge him to get in there and fight for the people that he is supposed to fight for. It is doubly outrageous, given the difficulties that the industry has experienced in recent times. We have expressed our concern that the Government is determined to push ahead with this legislation even before receiving the report of the Interim Inspection Policy Council, which is examining the whole question of the recovery of export inspection charges and is to report by 1 May. The industry is having enough difficulties now in trying to compete with the United States and New Zealand for available markets, and any additional costs of this magnitude that the Government wishes to impose on it can only result in the further closure of abattoirs and further hardship for people who have suffered four years of drought. It is outrageous that the Minister has not been able, in the time available to him, to take the matter back to Cabinet and win on it. What guarantee have we that the Government will not simply persist with its bid to impose this crushing burden on the industry? That is why we have sought to delay the passage of the Bill until May. At least by doing that there will be, we hope , some pressure on the Government to act more sensibly and reasonably and abandon this attempt to load the industry with this massive burden. I am sorry if the Opposition's action is causing the Minister inconvenience but I can assure him that we are giving him further time to try to convince some of those logheads with whom he sits that the industry has been through a serious time. I know that the Minister understands that. If he does not he is an idiot. I am not suggesting that he is, but if he does not take this opportunity that is available to him people might be excused for saying that he was. Certainly, I would be the last in the world to say that he is an idiot but, for the sake of his reputation, he must get around the table with his colleagues on this matter. I know how difficult the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) can be and I know how difficult the Treasurer (Mr Keating) might be. I urge him to get in there and box on with them; that is what it is all about. He is biggger than they are. He could chuck them out the window if he tried. I urge him to get in there and fight as the bush expects him to fight. I hope that by the time he comes up to my area he will have done so. I urge him to get a bit of skin off his knuckles and show that in the time that is available to him he has made these idiots realise that the bush cannot take too many more of these burdens. I make no apology for the Opposition's effort to try to help this poor gentleman win a battle or two for the bush. If we can help the industry by convincing the Minister and the Government we will have done a great service indeed. We are just trying to give the Minister a bit of breathing space. We hope he will make the most of it so that he can go out at some stage during the year and wish the boys in the bush a merry Christmas. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The double standards of the Government regarding deficit forecasts and EPAC. 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)(4.53) —Madam Deputy Speaker, this- Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the business of the day be called on. Question put. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.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) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C/ W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Millar, P. C.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. (Teller) Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 219th report of the Committee, relating to Finance minute on report 189-airport fire tenders, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr O'KEEFE —Report 219 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance Minute on the Committee's 189th report on airport fire tenders. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's report on airport fire tenders was tabled in Parliament on 27 October 1981. The Finance minute was forwarded to the Chairman of the Committee on 19 May 1983. Further information was requested from the Department on 11 November 1983. Because of delays in obtaining this information the Committee requested Mr C. W. Freeland, Secretary, Department of Aviation, to attend a meeting of the Committee on 6 December 1983 to present the information in public forum. The requested information was provided to the Committee on that day. The Committee's inquiry arose from the Auditor-General's report for 1978-79. In his report the Auditor-General disclosed serious and costly problems in the order and purchase by the Department of Transport of 16 ultra-large fire tenders from the Walter Motor Truck Company, United States of America. A further nine vehicles were ordered from the same company. In its inquiry the Committee focused on the purchasing procedures and practices of the Department of Transport in acquiring the fleet of 25 ultra-large fire tenders. The major concern of the Committee in report 189 was that a prototype vehicle had not been developed and tested in response to specifications supplied by the Department prior to the order of production units. The Committee was also concerned that Australian manufacturers, some of which appeared to have a healthy record of export of fire vehicles, were disadvantaged. The Committee criticised many aspects of the specification development, tendering and contracting procedures of the then Department of Transport. The Committee was not satisfied with the response by the now Department of Aviation contained in the Finance minute. The Department did not agree that the development of a prototype was necessary and has refused to accept many of the Committee's conclusions. Chapter one of report 219 draws the Parliament's attention to particular concerns of the Committee. The further information requested by the Committee included the service records of the 25 airport fire tenders, the availability of spare parts and details of cyclical reviews within the Department. Information supplied by the Department showed that a number of 'significant defects' have continued to occur in some of the vehicles. The costs of repair have been considerable. However, at the meeting on 6 December 1983 Mr Freeland and his officers assured the Committee that such defects occur in fire trucks generally and that the costs are comparable with similar vehicles. The Committee accepted the Department's assurances that the serviceability of the Walter fire trucks is comparable with other vehicles the Department has in service. In conclusion, the Committee noted that the Walter fire trucks are now operating to the satisfaction of the Department of Aviation. I commend this report to honourable members. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is the first occasion on which you have been in the chair when I have been speaking, let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the high office you now hold. I present the fifth report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr JACOBI(Hawker) —by leave-Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also join my colleagues in extending to you personally my highest and warmest congratulations. I present the report of the Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences in 1983, together with four associated papers. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr JACOBI —It is a privilege to have led the Australian delegation to both conferences at Helsinki and Seoul last year. The reports that I have just tabled cover the 1983 meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the contribution made by the Australian delegation to both the Helsinki meeting and the 70th conference which was held in Seoul. The report gives a summary of views expressed by parliamentarians representing a large number of countries with widely differing parliamentary, governmental and political systems on subjects as general as world peace and as specific as the shooting down of the Korean airliner by Soviet military aircraft. The fact that within the Union there are many national representatives of parliaments which, by our definition, have dubious claims to the practice of multiparty, representative parliamentary democracy has caused some Australian delegates to previous conferences some concern, and I appreciate that. As I have said in my foreword to the report, this fault in the eyes of some is perhaps the strength of the IPU. If the Union contained only representatives of homogeneous representative assemblies the views on most subjects would be unanimous and the conference conclusions would obviously be predictable. As presently constituted the IPU provides a unique opportunity for Australian parliamentarians to meet both formally and informally other parliamentarians from Eastern bloc countries, developed countries, Third World countries and underdeveloped countries, in fact parliamentarians representing most of the political systems and ideologies which exist throughout the world. In the United Nations representatives of governments meet in an attempt to reach an understanding on world issues. In the IPU world parliamentarians meet with similar aspirations. The Australian delegation made an effective contribution both in Finland and in the Republic of South Korea. At the meetings of the 10-plus group, the committee deliberations and in the plenary sessions of the conference they presented a united and effective voice in representing Australia's views. I think, without any doubt, that considerable success was achieved by the Australian delegation in enabling the Swiss draft to be strengthened to show that the IPU condemned the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for its actions against Korean flight 007. The amendments in the draft were accepted because they represented the feelings, I believe, of the majority of delegations without threatening the structure or aims of the future of the IPU. I add also that the Rangoon bombings made the strengthening of the Swiss draft more feasible and more necessary. There was widespread feeling that the IPU meeting at Seoul, which did not condemn the Korean Air Lines incident, would have been in fact a failure. After the news of the assassination in Rangoon of the four Cabinet Ministers and other senior Cabinet officials was received, the Executive Committee held a special meeting at 8.00 a.m. on 10 October and called for the cancellation of all social events on that day and for a special plenary session to be convened for that evening to consider the atrocity. The special session provided an opportunity for the condemnation of this barbaric act of terrorism and expressions of sympathy and condolences to the relatives of the victims. The occasion was also taken to pay tribute to the murdered Koreans. I would like to thank my Deputy, Senator John Watson, and all other delegates- the honourable member for Wentworth, Mr Peter Coleman, Senator Elstob, the honourable member for Franklin, Mr Goodluck, the honourable member for Chifley, Mr Gorman, the honourable member for Riverina, Mr Hicks and the honourable member for Bowman, Mr Keogh, and also the staff who gave us wonderful co- operation and support throughout both conferences. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Finnish and Korean groups and to the governments for their efficient running of the meetings and their generous hospitality. The Korean group is worthy of special mention for not allowing their anger and sadness at the atrocities of the KAL disaster and the Rangoon bombings to deter them from the task of making a success of the 70th IPU congress. I commend the report to the House and seek honourable members' continuing support in furthering the work of the Union through the Australian national group. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —by leave-I would like to comment briefly on a matter that is referred to in the report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union concerning a small incident but one which involved me. I would like to give some further details of the matter because I think it has some relevance to the IPU and the future of the IPU. When preparing to go to Seoul I agreed to participate in the debate on the role of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and to do that it seemed sensible to look at some of the speeches, to which the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) has referred, that had been given in the Parliament about earlier meetings of the IPU. Having examined them I was impressed with the number of speakers-by no means was this unanimous-of this House or the other place who, on the basis of their experiences of IPU conferences, were extremely sceptical about the value of the IPU. It seemed to me sensible to draw the IPU's attention to the strain of opinion in this Parliament. While stressing that it was not a unanimously held opinion and that there were other members of the parliament who thought very well of the Union, it still, nevertheless, seemed important to stress to the Union that many members of this Parliament, from all parties, were very critical of the Union. So I prepared my speech quoting six members of this Parliament, three from the Liberal Party and three from the Australian Labor Party. Briefly I quoted Senator Missen who referred to: 'This farce which only gives respectability to the dictatorships'. I quoted Senator Walters who thought that we should consider whether we would continue to send delegates to the IPU conference and Senator Martin who said something the same. I quoted the now Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen, as saying: 'This once august body', the IPU, 'has now become an outrageous farce'. I also quoted the Australian newspaper which, when referring to Mr Cohen, referred to the: ' debased, dishonourable IPU'. I also quoted Senator Tate and the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). I stressed that these were important opinions and that they were not, as I have said already, supported by everybody but that the IPU would do well to give serious attention to the fact that it should in the opinion of these parliamentarians show a greater commitment 'to the values of democracy, the rights of opposition, the importance of free elections', and that very many of the delegates there came from so-called parliaments which did not, of course, recognise these political values at all. I concluded by saying that I hoped this was worth their consideration. I am pleased to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that after the speech I received congratulations from a large number of people, mainly, it is true, from the democracies, but it became clear that there was some misunderstanding. It was assumed, first of all, that I had put these views forward as my own-that I was endorsing entirely these views-whereas, as I think I have made it clear now, I was putting them forward for the delegates' consideration, as worthy of their consideration. But worse, it was taken by some that I was speaking for the Australian delegation as a whole and expressing its view. It was put to me that this was making it very difficult for the leader of our delegation, the honourable member for Hawker, who naturally along with the rest of us was concerned to see that the right sort of resolution about the KAL massacre was passed, and that if it was considered that my speech was expressing the views of the Australian delegation, this was making his task more difficult. I did not want to do that. I was most anxious not to make his task more difficult in this very important matter of the KAL massacre, so I decided that I would give a statement the next day making clear precisely what I intended to do, and that statement is published in this report. I now come to the real point of the matter-and I think this is a serious matter . There is no Hansard for the IPU meetings, no verbatim daily report, but an official precis is put out every day. The precis of my speech had some of the words struck from the record. The footnote states: 'Mr Coleman said that other members of the Australian Parliament had described the IPU as . . .' Then there are just dots. Mr Cohen's words 'outrageous farce' and the Australian editorial' s words 'debased dishonourable IPU' were apparently too much for the IPU. Mr Cadman —Can't they take criticism? Mr COLEMAN —No. So there are three dots and an asterisk which means 'words deleted from the record by decision of the President'. That seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I stress again, if I need to do it again, that I had quoted these members' opinions so that the delegates there could think about that. I had not endorsed them and I had not said that I agreed with them. For the official precis not even to allow those words to be used, indicates a sensitivity, touchiness and indifference to free speech which I think is a very bad thing. I do not want to be forced to go on to say that one should treat that as indicating that the IPU is worthless. I use it to illustrate that the IPU is far from being conducted in a fully democratic spirit. I am afraid that that act, which is of course no great concern to me personally-I do not mind the three dots and an asterisk meaning 'words deleted'-indicates a weakness in the IPU that critical words of this kind cannot be published in the official precis. It tends to confirm the opinions of those members whom I quoted in my speech. Nevertheless I would not want to draw the conclusion that the IPU is worthless. I still think, as the honourable member for Hawker said, it serves certain functions. I conclude by congratulating the South Korean national group for organising an extremely efficient meeting in those terrible circumstances between the KAL massacre and the Rangoon massacre. I think every delegate from every country was tremendously impressed with the South Koreans' efficiency and commitment. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(5.24) —by leave-I briefly take the time of the House to say a few words in regard to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held in Seoul last year. Before doing so I think it is appropriate to refer to the remarks made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) and reiterate what he has already said. He certainly did his best to make it clear to the conference that the remarks that he made were made in the context that he has now explained to the House. I note that he is somewhat dissatisfied with the way his remarks were handled by the President of the conference, with the deletion of some remarks from the official record. I hope that the honourable member for Wentworth regards this as a personal disagreement between him and the people who controlled the conference at the time. I understand that he is going to the next conference to be held in Geneva in a month or so. I am sure that he will have the opportunity there to pursue the matter at a personal level if he so wishes. The conference in Geneva is one of two to be held this year under a different arrangement decided upon at the Seoul conference late last year. Apart from joining with the previous honourable members who have spoken in respect of the conference in Seoul and adding my congratulations to the organisers of the conference in Seoul, because the hospitality there was certainly something that I believe could not be exceeded anywhere, I want to say that there are two matters to which I would like to refer briefly. The Seoul conference was my second experience of attending IPU conferences. I previously attended the sixty-first Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Tokyo in 1974. A number of Eastern bloc countries did not attend the conference in Seoul. However, of the 100 or so countries which attend the IPU conference on a regular basis, it is sad to say that a number of countries take the IPU much more seriously than we do. I am not saying that as a reflection on this Government or on the previous Government. I doubt that a recommendation has ever been made to an Australian government that the IPU should be regarded more seriously by this Parliament because, after all, it is the responsibility of this Parliament to take a stand on this matter. We send delegates on a fairly irregular basis. Admittedly we now have a system whereby the leader and the deputy leader of the delegation are appointed on the basis of their continuity of attendance during the life of the Parliament. It is obvious from the people I met originally in Tokyo and whom I had the opportunity to meet again in Seoul that a number of the more important delegations regard representation, particularly at the level of leader and deputy leader, as being on a permanent basis. I am not suggesting that we should elect leaders and deputy leaders who would then retain those positions as a right. I am suggesting that we should get away from the practice of making ineligible people who have served as permanent delegates for a three-year period. I think those people should be allowed the opportunity to stand for re-election, say, after the next Parliament is elected so that if they can retain the confidence of their party colleagues, they will continue to serve as delegates at those very important conferences. That would give Australia a much more worthy place in those conferences. It would mean that our delegates would be listened to more in the various committees which participate in the activities of the conference. It would mean that we would have a much greater influence in the decision-making processes of those conferences. At the moment we are fortunate that our leader, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), is a member of the Council of the IPU. The person from whom he took over that job was from the other side of the House. If we could be given the opportunity of having our leader elected to the presidency of the IPU, and I think that would be a very valuable and important role for the leader of our delegation to fill, we would have to look seriously at allowing our representatives to continue on a much more permanent basis than we allow at the moment. I put that proposition to the Parliament because I think it is worthy of consideration. The other matter I wish to mention briefly is that, apart from the arrangements whereby our leaders and deputy leaders would be given the opportunity to attend these conferences on a more permanent basis and accordingly give us the opportunity to aspire to a more influential position on the IPU, there is a need for us to look seriously at the appointment of a permanent secretariat or at least the appointment of permanent officers to serve the different delegations that attend the conferences. This is more immediately important. Without indicating in any way that I am not totally satisfied with the arrangements that operated at the Seoul conference in respect of the service that was available from the officers of the Parliament who were appointed to attend with the delegation, I believe it would be much more satisfactory if an officer of the Parliament were appointed to attend on a permanent basis rather than continue with the present arrangements whereby the officers who attend to serve us, a secretary and an assistant secretary, are appointed on a one-off basis. Again, this would give us somebody who would be in closer contact with the Inter- Parliamentary Union on a regular basis. It would give us an officer of the Parliament who would be able to devote if not all his time, then a fair percentage of it, to the affairs of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It would much more adequately equip the delegates who attend with the background information and resources that they need for their duties and to serve this Parliament more adequately as representatives of the Parliament at IPU conferences. I leave those two points with honourable members for consideration, namely the permanency of both the leader and deputy leader of the delegation, and-this is a much more important matter which requires immediate attention-the appointment of a permanent officer to serve the delegations in future. I must say, for those who have not had the privilege so far of attending an IPU conference, that it is something well worthy of their attention. I do not suppose we have ever had a shortage of people interested in the opportunity of attending conferences but, seriously, I implore each and every member of the House who shows an interest in it in the future not to have that interest purely for the opportunity of attending the conference without having in mind that he should participate in a very real way and be involved in the activities and debates of the conference. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —by leave-I support the comments of the previous speakers. First of all, I pay tribute to the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), a very serious and dignified man who, under very difficult circumstances particularly in relation to the Rangoon affair, did an extremely good job. That also goes for the deputy head of the delegation, Senator Watson-if I may say so, another very serious man. I thought the other members of the delegation worked extremely hard. The important thing about the conference was that it was able to cement the relationship between South Korea and Australia. We visited, again under very dignified arrangements, the battlefields of the Korean War. It was evident to all who attended that the relationship between the South Koreans and the Australian members of the armed forces is very firm, very enduring, and something that one has to see to really believe that it exists. The speeches at the conference-- Mr Coleman —You gave a good one. Mr GOODLUCK —I thank the honourable member for Wentworth. He gave an excellent address, a very serious address, and he has already remarked on it. Mr Hurford —Did he have dignity, too? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, great dignity. In my brief speech to the conference, on world unemployment, I realised that although we are experiencing an economic decline in Australia, with high unemployment, unemployment is far worse in the developing countries. Two-thirds of the world population lives in total poverty, so although we have problems those countries have problems too. That was brought home to me after having talked to delegates. I had another experience that will remain with me for a long time. I happened to be walking down the street in Seoul, a city of 9 million people, and I met a young couple from Tasmania who went there to adopt a baby. They were two young schoolteachers-when I say young, around 34 or 35 years old-who went to Seoul to adopt a little baby because in Australia there is a waiting list of five years before a baby can be adopted. I thought to myself then that, in this big world, an important part of a delegation's work is to cement relationships with other countries, to make absolutely certain that we are receptive to their feelings. It was a most enjoyable conference, and once again I thank everybody for the arrangements they made. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Redevelopment of surgical and diagnostic facilities at Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales. The proposal comprises an extension to the existing administration building to provide new accommodation to overcome inadequacies in existing surgical and diagnostic facilities and construction of a separate building for a centralised stores function. The main elements of the proposal are: A suite of six new operating theatres; A new central sterilising and supply facility; Pathology laboratory; Expanded organ imaging facilities comprising ultrasound, nuclear medicine and radiology; and Centralised hospital store This will be of interest mainly to New South Wales members, of course, but it mirrors what is going on under the present Government at other repatriation hospitals. The main building structure will be of a simple reinforced concrete frame with brick external walls to match adjacent buildings. It will be airconditioned. Existing vehicular and pedestrian access will be modified and extended as required and the adjacent areas will be landscaped. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $12,100,000, at December 1983 prices. I table plans of the proposed work. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(5.37) —The Opposition welcomes the announcement by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) of referral of this work to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. On behalf of the Opposition, I support the motion and indicate, that in my dual role as both shadow Minister for Housing and Construction and as Deputy Chairman of the Public Works Committee, the Opposition not only welcomes the reference but also will be looking forward with great eagerness to examining the proposals. The work proposed by the Government in this area is urgent. Concord Repatriation General Hospital is a very important institution in Australia and there has been for some time a need for this improvement. I support the motion and look forward to examining in great detail the Government's proposals. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(5.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the registration in Australia of the deaths of Australian citizens, Australian residents and people in receipt of Australian social security benefits, whose deaths cannot be registered under existing State and Territory legislation. It will also enable Australia to conform to accepted international practice by registering the deaths of these and other persons which occur in international airspace or waters on board Australian registered aircraft of ships, or on board ships or aircraft travelling to and from Australia. Registration of deaths occurring within Australia is a State and Territory responsibility. There is, however, no legislation covering the registration in Australia of deaths which occur outside Australia. Legislation does exist, both Commonwealth and State, providing for such deaths to be registered in certain circumstances. Most States, for example, provide for the registration of deaths occurring outside the State on ships, and in some cases aircraft, proceeding to that State. These registration schemes leave a number of potential gaps. Although not conclusive statistics are available it is known that more than 200 Australians die overseas each year. Over the years, a number of deaths have occurred outside Australia which have not been able to be registered, either in Australia or another country. There are at present about 12 cases in which the deaths of Australians who died outside Australia cannot be registered. As a result, the personal representatives of such deceased persons have experienced considerable difficulties in winding up the estates because no death certificates can be issued in Australia. Lack of capacity to register deaths abroad also provides opportunities for social security and passports frauds. There are instances of social security benefits continuing to be paid even though the person entitled has died overseas . A registration scheme will also assist the Australian Bureau of Statistics by providing more complete data on deaths, which are an essential component of population estimates. The Bill creates a register of deaths abroad and makes provision for the appointment of a registrar. The Registrar, Australian diplomatic and consular officers, and the officials of any country authorised to perform consular functions on behalf of Australia are specified to be registering officers. It is expected that the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages will be appointed Registrar of Deaths Abroad. I should emphasise that only deaths which at present cannot be registered in any other Australian jurisdiction will be registerable under this Bill, although it will be no bar to registration that the death has been or may be registered overseas. In practice deaths will be registered overseas by Australian diplomatic and consular officers in much the same way as births are now registered. Each overseas mission will maintain a register, and a central register incorporating all the details recorded in overseas registers will be maintained in the office of the Registrar in Australia. Provision is made for the registration of deaths of Australian citizens and residents occurring abroad and on Australian registered sea and air vessels. The Bill also makes provision for the registration of deaths which occur on all ships and aircraft travelling to or from Australia. Disappearances from ships and aircraft are deemed to be deaths where a registering officer is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that death has occurred. For the purposes of the Bill, space-craft are considered to be aircraft. Deaths which have occurred before the Bill comes into force may be registered, so that many of the difficulties which led to the introduction of this scheme may be resolved. Since registration will have a number of significant legal effects, relating for example to the winding up of estates, persons having an interest in the contents of the register may apply for searches, copies and extracts. Provision is made for the register and copies and extracts of the register to be admissible in evidence. The Registrar may, upon application or on his own motion, correct both the register and certificates of death abroad already issued, and he may also cancel registration. Interested persons are to be given notice, if that is practicable, that the Registrar proposes to amend or cancel registration of a death and they may object to the proposed amendment or cancellation. In view of the legal consequences which may flow from decisions by the Registrar or registering officer, such decisions are subject to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The financial considerations of this measure are not expected to be great. There will be no need for additional staff in either the office of the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages or in diplomatic and consular missions overseas. In the first year of operation it will be necessary to establish the register, print death certificates and publicise the facility. The estimated cost of this is $20,000. Annually recurring costs are estimated to be approximately $5,000. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(5.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a trust fund for the purpose of making payments to refiners of crude oil. Related Bills, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill 1984, provide for the imposition of an additional levy on Bass Strait crude oil and for the collection of the levy. This package of Bills will impose an additional levy of $1.26 a kilolitre-that is, 20c a barrel-on all crude oil produced from Bass Strait. After rebates to the producers for exports and their producers' entitlement crude oil, the proceeds of the levy will be redistributed to refiners in a way that reflects the freight costs incurred in transporting Bass Strait crude oil from Westernport to each refinery. The Bill, and the related Bills, will not change the price of Bass Strait crude oil to the Australian community. Although the individual cost structure of each refiner will be affected by these measures, the overall cost to the industry will remain unchanged. Prior to the introduction of the crude oil absorption scheme in September 1970, lengthy discussions were held with the oil industry concerning details of its operation. The government of the day recognised that there would be some extra cost involved in using Bass Strait crude oil, because of its movement to the various refineries, and it expressed the wish at the time to see this extra cost borne equitably between refiners. All companies undertook to examine the problem with the objective of finding a solution. In the event no solution was found and , although the matter has been examined a number of times in the intervening years, the problem has remained. Following further representations from some refiners in 1983, the matter was discussed at a meeting between the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) and refiners in July 1983. At that meeting the refiners were again asked to seek a solution acceptable to the industry. Again the industry was unable to agree and therefore, as was foreshadowed at the meeting with the industry, the Government has decided to take steps to resolve this matter. The indigenous crude oil absorption policy imposes a collective obligation on marketers of petroleum products in Australia to absorb indigenous crude oil and to arrange for its refining within Australia. Each company's share of the indigenous crude oil available is calculated on the basis of its share of sales in Australia of certain specified pretroleum products. It is not a requirement that each marketer should refine its share of the crude in its own refinery-the policy is designed to ensure that freight movements are minimised. For all producing areas, with the single exception of the Bass Strait fields, all production can be absorbed at the nearest refinery. The import parity pricing arrangements value indigenous crude oil at the notional cost of landing Arabian light crude oil at the refinery port nearest to the producing field. In the case of Bass Strait crude oil the nearest refinery is at Westernport, Victoria. Because that refinery cannot absorb the entire production, an adjustment is made to the import parity price which reflects the notional cost of transporting the overflow, first to the other Victorian refineries at Altona and Geelong and then to refineries in Sydney and Brisbane. This calculation results in a reduction of 36c a barrel in the price of Bass Strait crude oil to all refiners although the actual costs incurred in moving Bass Strait crude from Westernport to the various refineries range from zero at Westernport to around 96c a barrel at Brisbane. The arrangements proposed in this and the related Bills recognise this inequity proposing a redistribution of 20c a barrel on the coastal freight adjustment component of the import parity price for Bass Strait crude oil among all refiners to reflect differences in the cost of transporting crude oil from Westernport. In deciding to redistribute 20c rather than the full 36c, the Government has recognised the investment made by the Melbourne refiners in pipelines to minimise their cost of moving crude oil and the additional costs they face in the coastal shipping of some petroleum products. The levy of $12.6 per kilolitre-as I have said, 20c a barrel-will be imposed on production of all crude oil from Bass Strait. This will be collected by the Bureau of Customs. Funds equivalent to the proceeds of the levy will be appropriated from Consolidated Revenue to a trust account to be administered by the Department of Resources and Energy. The full amount of the levy will be reimbursed to the producers for any crude oil produced that is not included in the allocation scheme. The balance of the funds will be redistributed among the refiners on the basis of movements of crude oil over the most recent 30 months and the assessed costs of transport to each refinery. Determination of distributions from the trust fund will be made on 1 January and 1 July each year but the first determination will be made immediately upon proclamation of this and the related legislation and will apply from 1 January 1984. For coastal shipping movements, the freight rates to be applied in making determinations will be the published average freight rate assessment, AFRA, and world scale rates for large range tankers up to 80,000 tonnes, LRI, and insurance and loss will be based on the standard allowance of 0.6 per cent presently included in the import parity price calculations. In the case of pipeline transfers, the actual pipeline costs will be used. Each refiner's share of the freight equalisation fund will be calculated by the formula described in clause 9 of the Bill, and it makes lively reading. The proposals in this and the related Bills represent a compromise between the views put to the Government in recent months by the Sydney and Brisbane based refiners and those of the Melbourne based refiners. The proposals are designed to resolve an unsatisfactory situation that has been a source of concern in the petroleum industry for a number of years. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Labor-Minister for Science and Technology)(5.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to introduce a levy on crude oil produced from off-shore areas in Bass Strait. The Bill is part of a package of measures to give effect to the Government's decision to introduce a scheme to compensate refiners of Bass Strait crude oil for costs incurred in moving that crude oil to the various refineries. Details of the scheme are outlined in the second reading speech relating to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill 1984. This Bill provides for the imposition of a freight adjustment levy of $1.26 a kilolitre on the producers for crude oil produced in Bass Strait. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(5.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the third of a package of Bills prepared to give effect to the Government's decision to introduce a scheme to compensate refiners of crude oil for costs incurred in moving that crude to the various refineries. Details of the scheme are outlined in the second reading speech on the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill 1984. This Bill provides the machinery necessary for the collection of the adjustment levy. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 7 March. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 3, clause 3, sub-clause (1), line 40, leave out ''of a'', insert '' of''. No. 2-Page 16, clause 16, after sub-clause (2), insert the following new sub- clause: ''(2) Without limiting the generality of the matters to which the Governor-General is to have regard for the purposes of paragraph (2) (a), he shall have regard to the question whether the shortage, or the likelihood of a shortage, of the liquid fuel concerned is likely to be averted by the voluntary augmenting of supplies of the liquid fuel by relevant fuel industry corporations .''. No. 3-Page 34, clause 41, paragraph (3) (a), line 19, leave out ''fifth'', insert ''fifteenth''. No. 4-Page 34, clause 41, paragraph (3) (b), line 22, leave out ''fifth'', insert ''fifteenth''. No. 5-Page 34, clause 41, paragraph (3) (b), line 24, leave out ''fifth'', insert ''fifteenth''. No. 6-Page 34, clause 41, sub-clause (4), line 25, leave out ''5'', insert ''15 ''. No. 7-Page 34, clause 41, sub-clause (5), line 29, leave out ''5'', insert ''15 ''. No. 8-Page 35, clause 41, sub-clause (5), line 1, leave out ''this section'', insert ''sub-sections (3) and (4)''. No. 9-Page 35, clause 41, at the end of clause, add the following new sub- clauses: ''(6) Where an instrument to which this section applies is made during a period of national liquid fuel emergency- (a) the instrument comes into force forthwith; (b) sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) do not apply to the instrument; and (c) sub-section (8) applies to the instrument. ''(7) Where- (a) an instrument to which this section applies is made otherwise than during a period of national liquid fuel emergency; (b) a period of national liquid fuel emergency is declared to exist; and (c) on the commencement of that period the instrument had neither come into force under sub-section (3) nor been disallowed under sub-section (4), then, on the commencement of that period- (d) the instrument comes into force; (e) sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) cease to apply to the instrument; and (f) sub-section (8) applies to the instrument. ''(8) If either House of the Parliament, in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given within 15 sitting days after a copy of an instrument to which this sub-section applies has been laid before that House, (whether the notice was given for the purposes of sub-section (4) or of this sub-section), passes a resolution disallowing that instrument, the instrument so disallowed shall thereupon cease to have effect. ''(9) If, at the expiration of 15 sitting days after notice of a motion to disallow an instrument to which sub-section (8) applies has been given in a House of the Parliament, being notice given within 15 sitting days after a copy of the instrument has been laid before that House- (a) the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or (b) the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, the instrument specified in the motion shall thereupon be deemed to have been disallowed. ''(10) If, before the expiration of 15 sitting days after notice of a motion to disallow any instrument to which sub-section (8) applies has been given in a House of the Parliament- (a) the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires, or the Parliament is prorogued; and (b) at the time of the dissolution, expiry or prorogation, as the case may be- (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or (ii) the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, the instrument shall, for the purposes of sub-sections (8) and (9), be deemed to have been laid before that first-mentioned House on the first sitting day of that first-mentioned House after the dissolution, expiry or prorogation, as the case may be. ''(11) Where an instrument to which sub-section (8) applies is disallowed, or is deemed to have been disallowed, under this section, the disallowance of the instrument has the same effect as a revocation of the instrument. ''(12) Where- (a) an instrument to which sub-section (8) applies (in this sub-section referred to as the 'relevant instrument') is disallowed, or is deemed to have been disallowed, under this section; and (b) the relevant instrument revoked, in whole or in part, another instrument to which this section applies that was in force immediately before the relevant instrument came into operation, the disallowance of the relevant instrument has the effect of reviving that other instrument from and including the date of the disallowance as if the relevant instrument had not been made. ''(13) Where an instrument to which this section applies comes into force, the Minister shall cause a notice to that effect to be published in the Gazette. ''(14) The Minister shall, before 1 July 1984, make at least one instrument to which this section applies under each of the sub-sections referred to in sub- section (1) of this section.''. No. 10-Page 35, clause 43, sub-clause (3), lines 28 and 29, leave out '', being an instrument that is in force,''. No. 11-Page 37, clause 45, sub-clause (2), lines 7 to 10, leave out the sub- clause. No. 12-Page 37, clause 45, sub-clause (3), line 12, leave out ''Act'', insert ' 'section''. No. 13-Page 37, after clause 45, insert the following new clause: Compensation for compliance with directions under Part II or III ''45A. (1) Subject to this section, where a person suffers loss, injury or damage by reason of the compliance by the person with a direction under Part II or III, there is payable to the person by the Commonwealth such amount of compensation in respect of that loss, injury or damage as is agreed between the Commonwealth and the person or, failing agreement, as is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. ''(2) In assessing the amount of compensation payable under sub-section (1) in respect of loss, injury or damage suffered by a person, account shall be taken only of so much of the loss, injury or damage- (a) as is greater than the loss, injury or damage suffered by the community at large, or a substantial part of the community at large, in connection with dealing with, or in preparation for dealing with, a shortage or likely shortage of liquid fuel during a period of national liquid fuel emergency; and (b) as the person is not, and is not likely to be, in a position to make good from the market supplied by the person. ''(3) Compensation is not payable under sub-section (1) in respect of loss, injury or damage suffered by a person unless the person lodges a claim for compensation with the Minister within 12 months or such longer period (if any) as is prescribed after the loss, injury or damage was suffered. ''(4) Any damages or compensation recovered or other remedy given in proceedings that are instituted otherwise than by virtue of this section shall be taken into account in assessing compensation payable in proceedings that are instituted under this section and that arise out of the same event or transaction.''. No. 14-Page 37, clause 47, sub-clause (3), line 42, leave out ''section 45'', insert ''section 45 or 45A''. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(5.56) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Senate submitted a number of amendments, essentially on behalf of the Opposition. The Government was disposed to accept them. It was not a matter of contention and I do not think it needs any lengthy explanation. I do not expect the House would want me to speak at length. The amendments require that before declaring that a liquid fuel emergency exists, the Governor-General should have regard to, inter alia, the likelihood of the shortage being averted by the voluntary augmenting of suppliers by relevant fuel industry corporations. Clause 41 and related provisions establish a period of 15 sitting days of each House of the Parliament for disallowance of proposed guidelines except during an emergency in which case proposed guidelines will have immediate effect as do regulations. These amendments were agreed to after discussions between the Opposition and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). They are a number of minor grammatical and textual changes which are not of great significance. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(5.58) —The Opposition welcomes the Government's acceptance of these amendments. We have nothing more to say on this occasion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. [COGNATE BILL: SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that a general debate will be allowed covering the Satellite Communications Bill 1984 and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(6.00) —Before the debate was interrupted, I was in the process of addressing Aussat's relationship with Telecom as provided for in the Satellite Communications Bill. I had already observed that Aussat has the right to deal directly with broadcasters for television, radio and information distribution systems. Broadcasting is very different from telephone or data transmission services. It is a distribution network from one central point to a large number of receivers. Telephony and data transmission usually operate on a two-way basis; that is, both ends of the communication link can receive and transmit. To ensure that Aussat deals with the area that it deals with best and Telecom does likewise, Aussat should be required to refer all requests for services other than broadcasting services, that is, telephone services and data transmission services, to Telecom. I now come to my specific area of concern about this legislation. My area of most concern is clause 13 of the legislation which provides: Nothing in this Act shall be read as authorising the provision by Aussat of- (a ) services of a kind known as public switched telephone services; or (b) services of a kind known as public switched data services. I disagree with the interpretation of this section contained in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. In doing so, I use the common phrase, 'with respect'. It seems to me that the correct interpretation of this clause rests on the words ' services' and 'kind'. In this context I think the word 'kind' means 'like' or ' similar to'. If I am correct, Aussat is therefore prevented from offering services like or similar to the public switched telephone services or the public switched data services. As I have already stated, the emphasis should be on the word 'services' and not the words 'public switched'. The only kind of public switched telephone service which is presently offered in Australia is that offered by Telecom. If I am correct, any service which is like or similar to that service, regardless of whether it is public or switched, cannot be offered by Aussat. Put another way, I believe that this clause of the Bill prevents Aussat from offering a service like a discrete telephone network established by, for example, a bank, to communicate on a two-way basis with its branches either by telephone or data transmission. I think that clause 13 therefore prevents Aussat from competing with Telecom in offering any telephone services or data transmission services. If I am correct, Telecom's profit base in these growth areas of the future will be predicted and, therefore, Telecom has no excuse for not continuing to cross-subsidise its services. If I am wrong, however, I have a very grave concern that Aussat will be able to steal this growth area from Telecom and thus erode Telecom's profit base. In due course, probably five or 10 years from now, Telecom will tell the Government that it is unable to continue to cross-subsidise. When that happens, one of two things will occur. Either the price of telephone services for people in the bush will go through the roof or the Government will be called upon to pay a direct subsidy to Telecom to ensure the continuation of cross-subsidisation. For the sake of my electorate I hope that I am correct. If I am not, the subscribers in my electorate will face an increase of between $300 and $500 in their phone bills. That is the figure I mentioned earlier today as being the level of cross- subsidisation per subscriber in the remote rural areas of Australia. Earlier in this debate I addressed the proposition raised by the Opposition about Telecom's contribution to Aussat. That contribution will be between $20m and $30m. The Opposition was trying to trump up some sort of argument that this contribution would dramatically lessen Telecom's ability to connect phones for people in the bush. That argument, as I said earlier today, is a nonsense. The amount involved will have an infinitesimal effect on Telecom's capital works program. I have already compared the $20m with Telecom's $400m remote area program, but I also comment that if we compare the $20m with Telecom's yearly capital works budget, which is now approaching $2 billion, we see it is really a drop in the bucket. I suggest that the Opposition's argument on this aspect is nonsense. If Telecom has a 25 per cent share in Aussat at least it protects Telecom's profit base and therefore its ability to cross-subsidise will be protected if Aussat competes with it in those areas that I have already mentioned. Most of the Opposition speakers have claimed credit for this satellite project. I can remember hearing person after person come before the Caucus communications committee and make submissions. These people were all connected with the industry and they were all begging us to clear up the confusion which had existed over the past seven years under the previous Government. They asked us to make a clear statement on communications policy. Mr Charles —That is absolutely right. Mr REEVES —The honourable member for Isaacs will attest to that. Almost inevitably that is what they said. This excellent Minister for Communications ( Mr Duffy) has done exactly that in the short 12 months he has been in office. He has cleared up the confusion of seven years of Liberal-National Party dilly- dallying and has made a clear statement on just where communications is heading for the rest of this decade and into the 1990s. Finally, I comment on some statements made by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) about the study being done on Aboriginal usage of the satellite . I observe that the Aboriginal population in the Northern Territory has been dealing with the cultural impact of this new type of technology for years. For years it has had access to videos, the use of which is widespread. However, I am not opposed to the study referred to by the honourable member for Maranoa. I believe that it should be done. I do, however, agree that the study should not be limited to the impact that the satellite will have on Aboriginal people or the usage that Aboriginal people can make of the satellite. There are many others in remote areas who have special needs and whose needs could also be studied. I have already mentioned School of the Air; another is the Flying Doctor Service. Others include remote pastoralists, tourists operators, and mining towns like Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory which, I add, currently has only 12 telephone lines for a population of about 2,000 people. I ask the Minister for Communications just to consider broadening the study that is currently being undertaken to look at these other areas. I commend the Bill to the House. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(6.08) —In supporting the Satellite Communications Bill 1984 and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984, I point out that the introduction of the Aussat satellite system is a major scientific and technological advance for Australia and one of which I am proud. The Chairman of Aussat Pty Ltd, in the 1983 report, said that the policies of the Aussat organisation have been developed to ensure that Australia gains unique and valuable opportunities through participation in all stages of development of the Aussat project which will launch its first satellites between July and October 1985. The satellite system will expand Australia's existing communications facilities and will provide radio and telecommunication services for more than 300,000 Australians, including almost 118,000 Queenslanders who live in 26 isolated communities with populations less than 200, and also for 10,000 remote homesteads in outback Queensland. As a Queenslander, I am delighted to see this advance. These people will finally be able to enjoy some of the advantages that we as city dwellers take for granted. After many years of communication through two-way radio networks, such as the Flying Doctor Service and the School of the Air, they will receive direct broadcasts to their homes. In speaking to this Bill, I would also like to place on record the dedicated service provided by the Flying Doctor Service and the School of the Air. Other advantages of the satellite system include the provision of two-way communications through the use of satellite communications for air navigation and voice-data communications with aircraft. The Australian business community will be able to use specialist services such as facsimile and videotex to transmit their material to other offices. Public authorities agree that the satellite will provide increased facilities for their use. The Queensland Teachers Union and the Isolated Children's Parents Association support the introduction of the satellite system, which they believe will provide a far more adequate and sophisticated method of education for children in remote and isolated areas of the State, who are not able to attend a normal school. The Queensland police believe that it will allow a faster, more effective method of communication between outback settlements which do not have police stations and also in centres where stations are manned by only one officer. This will particularly advantage police when servicing outback Aboriginal centres. There has been trouble in some mission stations following violence and some of these stations have only limited access at the moment to phones and to two-way radio time. The service will also provide Telecom Australia with the opportunity to extend its telephone services to those areas where existing services are inadequate, and where planned services have not been introduced because of huge costs. The service provided by Telecom to outback centres located in sparsely populated areas of States such as Queensland, the Northern Territory-which has been so adequately and well represented in this House by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves)-and Western Australia has in some cases been the only link these people have had with the outside world. This service is extremely costly for Telecom. The Aussat satellite system is being introduced to complement Telecom's present terrestrial telecommunications and should not be seen to be in competition with it. Sections of the Bill in fact specifically prohibit Aussat from providing public-switched telephone services or public-switched data services, including, of course, the use of trunk telephones, telex, local calls, subscriber trunk dialling and computer data linked by telephone lines to bases from terminals. I stress that this is to ensure that there is no question of duplicating the services provided by Telecom's public network, which at present account for almost 92 per cent of Telecom's revenue. The Bill also provides that satellite users such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Telecom, et cetera, will not be authorised to sell or otherwise dispose of the right to transmit signals to an Aussat satellite. Some people have expressed concern that groups may be able to establish their own networks, for example, to transmit their electronic data to offices around Australia. However, I once again stress that the Bill makes mandatory the fact that the Aussat satellite may not be used for the purpose of carrying on a business for providing facilities for telecommunications between other persons. This will be enforced by a regulation in respect of what is known as third party traffic in line with existing regulation by Telecom of terrestrial services. Work on the satellite system has provided employment for a number of highly qualified and skilled workers. By the time the satellite is launched in July 1985 it is envisaged that there will be over 200 people on staff, and it is anticipated that this number will increase by a further 100 during the late 1980s. In addition to the jobs created directly by Aussat, many hundreds of other jobs have been produced through the design and construction of the major earth station buildings. Major earth stations are to be located in all capital cities. Twelve major earth stations are to be located in eight centres, and in addition a total of 21 smaller earth stations are to be used in satellite tests and demonstrations. On-site demonstrations are to be given to State government departments and their branches, such as the School of the Air and the police forces. The estimated cost of the major city earth stations and the minor earth stations, including estimates for building works, is $35,993,000. Through the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 provision is made for Telecom to acquire up to 25 per cent of the shareholding in Aussat. A total of 75 million shares has been issued to the Commonwealth of Australia, which is the sole beneficial shareholder of the company. The involvement of Telecom in Aussat will allow for optimum development and integration of the satellite system with the national terrestrial communications network. I believe it has been well established both internationally and nationally that Telecom is responsible for an industry which is an essential part of our national economic structure through its staff of 88,000 people with very wide expertise in technical and administrative fields. Through these people it operates a service which is vital to the Australian economy and society as a whole. I commend that service. The high standards of service provided by Telecom were accepted and mentioned in the report of the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia, which referred to: . . . the availability to Australian customers, nationwide, of world standard telecommunications services in terms of quality, diversity, price and accessibility. The report also points out: These telecommunications services are a vital infra-structure in the economy and will reflect social, business, government and national needs and priorities. The Australian Telecommunications Employees Association, which is the main Telecom workers union, put a submission to the Government last year in which it argued that Telecom should be given a freer hand in ventures such as microelectronics manufacturing and consultancy work. Mr Saunderson —A positive contribution. Mrs DARLING —I agree with the honourable member. It was indeed a positive contribution. The ATEA's submission highlighted that in Sweden the telecommunications authority, Televerket, owns half of a research and development company called Ellemtel, the other half of which is owned by a leading private firm, L.M. Ericsson. Under this operation, Ellemtel designs and develops the equipment for the joint owners, which then carry out separate production. Televerket carries out its manufacturing operations through a subsidiary called Tefab, which makes exchange equipment, telephone alarms and data processing equipment. If this type of venture were developed in Australia it would allow Telecom to become more involved in specific projects of a more innovative nature in association with companies such as Ericsson's and to become involved in the development of new equipment manufacturing ventures, which will be a step forward. I believe that this proposal would provide a growth opportunity and a stimulation of economic growth and increased employment within Telecom as well as allowing new revenue sources for the telecommunications authority. The consequential amendments also allow the Government to broaden Telecom's powers, while at the same time ensuring that Aussat does not threaten Telecom's monopoly over public-switched network services. Such monopoly becomes necessary when one considers that Telecom cross-subsidises a number of services to give a unified service to people in whichever area of Australia they may live. This is not to say there will not be some restraints applying to this power. Each proposal will have to be put forward to Cabinet for approval on a case-by-case basis. Australian Loan Council permission will have to be sought for the loan raising activities of Telecom subsidiaries. In conclusion, I will deal briefly with the question often asked recently, which is why should ownership of part of the satellite system not be sold to private industry? If control of any one of the 30-watt powered transponders which are capable of sending television pictures direct to viewers anywhere in the country were granted to any of the present media monopolies such as the Fairfax, Packer or Murdoch groups, they would be able to maintain their monopoly for the foreseeable future. The cost to the householders for this service would have been in the vicinity of $1,000 for a dish of 1.2 to 1.8 metres in diameter, but it has been suggested that the major television companies were proposing a national beam to cover the whole country. The cost for householders for this more sophisticated equipment would be increased upwards of $5,000 a household. I take much pleasure in supporting the Bills to hand, which offer an admirable solution to providing communication facilities at reasonable long term costs and particularly show this Government's commitment to people in the rural and isolated areas. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(6.19) —I take the opportunity to talk to the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill, which are extremely important, as many of the speakers before me have pointed out. For the first time the Bills set out quite clearly the role of Aussat Pty Ltd in Australia's national communications system, something which the Opposition, which formed the previous Government, failed to do during its years in government. As has quite rightly been pointed out, the media people who came to see us to talk about the uses for the satellite made it quite clear that they had been left in total confusion as to what they would be able to do with the satellite and what function it would play. The Satellite Communications Bill clearly lays it out for them and also quite clearly shows them what they will and will not be able to do. Importantly, the Bill confirms that Australia's communications network will remain a public network that is wholly owned by the Australian public and is working in the public interest, not, as the previous Government would have it, working for the interests of corporate bosses only. Perhaps, in considering the Bill, we should look at the history of the satellite and answer some of the criticism that has been applied to us by the Opposition. Firstly, the previous Government did not, as a matter of the natural development of the communications network, come to the decision that it would agree to the satellite proceeding. It was just that some of its supporters came to it and said: 'We think it would be a good idea, and would help us to expand our network if we had a satellite; what about going ahead with it?' So the previous Government set up a form of inquiry, made sure that it comprised the right people, and came up with the decision to have the satellite. The inquiry ignored the advice of the only group in Australia that was sufficiently competent really to prepare a submission-Telecom. As has been quite rightly pointed out by some members of the Opposition, Telecom had researched the matter , had put a lot of study into it. Telecom said that at that particular time it was not justified. Because Telecom was prepared to analyse the matter carefully rather than make decisions based purely on political grounds, it was vilified by the present Opposition and by those who wanted a satellite for personal reasons. That vilification has continued. Instead of supporters of the then Government saying simply that the advice of Telecom was that it was not justified at that time, the situation became one where Telecom was opposed, as was anybody else who became a critic of the decision to have a satellite then. That criticism has been aimed at the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association, the union involved in the communications industry. Earlier today the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) said that probably Telecom was right at the time, but added: 'Even so, a decision has been made and we should now proceed with it'. When this Government came to office it was in the position that a decision had been made some time earlier and that it would have been impractical to alter it. The Government, having been left with what was simply an in-principle decision, with money being expended and an absence of guidelines, rules or controls over what was to happen, set about ensuring bringing down as speedily as possible clear and concise guidelines that would permit proper operation, preserve the public network and ensure the role of both Aussat and Telecom. Telecom has served this country well. Australia presents enormous difficulties, both as to size and terrain, and because of its small population. Telecom, because it has always been a public enterprise, has been able to provide a service in the best possible way, keeping in mind the total public interest. In many areas some people do not have as good a service as they would like. Whilst the Government and the Opposition are both aware of that, and Telecom is aware of it, Telecom has not put itself in a position of making false promises as have many of those who are now in opposition-promising that things would happen when they knew that they would not. Telecom has continued to develop the network system and convert the service to rural outback areas. In doing so it has followed a steady program. Members of the Opposition have misused the satellite concept by informing people in the outback that they would get services earlier than they will. People were told that the satellite would resolve problems that it cannot. Honourable members opposite then turned around and further criticised Telecom for its poor performance. People in the outback will receive telephone services via Telecom under that organisation's normal program, which allows for the speediest conversion, the speediest connection of services, given the massive amount of cross-subsidisation that has to be applied in those areas, and given that it has to service the whole network and maintain services throughout Australia. Mrs Darling —It is a big job. Mr SAUNDERSON —Yes, and Telecom has done a marvellous job. Honourable members opposite expressed admiration for Telecom and said that it was doing a good job. However, although the honourable member for Mallee, for example, said that, he immediately turned around and started to kick Telecom again. Honourable members opposite find a great deal of difficulty-- Mr Duffy —They are schizophrenic. Mr SAUNDERSON —They are schizophrenic and find great difficulty in getting it all together. I must admit that when I first came to the Parliament 12 months ago and looked at the Opposition front bench I wondered how some of its occupants had got there. Having heard the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) speak today I realise that if they are all that is left on the back bench it is no wonder that it was a struggle to find people to put on the front bench. It is quite obvious that they are paranoid about trade unions, that they have little understanding of the problems of communications and, as the honourable member for Maranoa has shown, they have difficulty in understanding anything. We must look at the problems of the satellite and the areas that it can serve. If we were to pick up the amendments proposed by the Opposition, we would have a situation in which, on the one hand, they would applaud Aussat for allowing us to compete as a company, to be out there making a commercial venture work, and then they would turn around and say that what we want to do is make sure that it reserves a spot for commercial television. I do not know whether honourable members opposite are really worried that commercial television stations may not be able to pay enough to get on the satellite, or whether they are hoping that the legislation will state that Aussat must provide for commercial television and that therefore it will be provided to the network more cheaply than would be the case under competition in the open market. The same applies to broadcasting. To say that, on the one hand, Aussat must operate as a commercial venture but, on the other hand, private entrepreneurs should have special privileges is a ridiculous proposition. The Government, pursuant to its inquiry, has said that there is no reason why broadcasters should not have access to the satellite, like anyone else, but that they are not to have a privileged position-they will have to apply, compete and pay the market rate. The other amendments being put by the Opposition would simply allow third party leasing. Once again, it highlights their hypocrisy in expressing concern for Telecom. They say that Telecom has done a good job, that they do not really want to dismantle it, to harm it or to take away any of its profits but, on the other hand, they provide for an amendment which would permit third party leasing-which immediately would undermine Telecom's position in relation to the switching network. It would provide for a discounting of rates, a competitive situation which would not benefit the general public and certainly not those in the outback whom people on the other side claim to be looking after. It would benefit only a small sectional interest which supports honourable members opposite. Honourable members opposite have said that they like Telecom but really they do not. They would do everything that they could to hinder it, as was shown by their actions in government in limiting its loan capacity and forcing it to finance its activities. They have undermined Telecom by placing restrictions on its moving into new venture areas. By virtue of the Davidson report they would have proceeded to dismantle profitable parts of Telecom, thereby ensuring that the general public would be left with a much more expensive network. We would have been paying far more for services. What the Government has done, particularly by way of the provisions in the Bill, which amend the Act, is to allow Telecom to have an interest of up to 25 per cent in Aussat. That will ensure that the two organisations, Aussat and Telecom, work together in the development of the communications network in Australia. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HAYDEN —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —Tonight, in the Senate a colleague and friend of mine misrepresented me. Senator Cyril Primmer a little earlier tonight made three comments. The first is: More seriously, in preparing the statement- which is the one I made to this House last week in respect of Mr John Ryan, the former Acting Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service- the Department of Foreign Affairs has failed to reveal to the Parliament, and probably to Mr Hayden himself, a range of extremely adverse and well-known material involving Mr Ryan. That is non-specific. It is quite unfair to present that sort of non-specific complaint. In the past Senator Primmer has been specific, albeit wrong, in the matters he has presented. I suggest he has resorted to this hedge because he has nothing further to bring forward. Senator Primmer also said: What I find remarkable is this, I believe that Mr Hayden was aware of some of this adverse material when I made my speech on 8 December last. That is demonstrably untrue. He then says: What is more remarkable is not that Mr Henderson- who is the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs- apparently chose to conceal his and Mr Ryan's knowledge of this material from Mr Hayden, but that Mr Hayden apparently decided not to display the knowledge he had gained from honest Foreign Affairs officers-to the Parliament. There are two things there. He accuses Henderson of concealment from me in respect of Mr Ryan. I have no evidence of that. I believe there has been a full disclosure to me and I think it is the responsibility of Senator Primmer, if he asserts otherwise, to produce the evidence on which he makes that assertion. Secondly, and finally, he accuses me of 'apparently' having decided 'not to display the knowledge' I had gained from honest Foreign Affairs officers to the Parliament. I made a full disclosure of all relevant information. I conclude by saying it is most unfortunate that Senator Primmer has determined upon a course of statements which are a misrepresentation of the facts. I repeat my invitation of last week to him that he should resort to those intuitive standards I have understood him to display in the past of decency, respect for the truth and respect for other people. Debate interrupted. [COGNATE BILL: SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(8.03) — Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak when you have been in the Chair. I congratulate you on reaching the office which you now hold. You represent the opposite sex and you are demonstrating that you are as capable as a man in carrying out your duties. It is a pity that members of the Opposition do not recognise that fact in their representation. Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was dealing in some detail with the Opposition's attitude to communications. Members of the Opposition who have spoken in this debate have tried to show that they have some consideration for Telecom, that they really believe that there ought to be a public communications network and that they support it. In fact, their record over seven years shows that that is far from the truth. Like their attitude to most other things they continue to try to deceive the public while setting about sponsoring their private supporters. The previous Government instituted a number of inquiries into Telecom and Australia Post. Their main reason for doing so was to try to identify the profitable areas which they could separate from the public network and hand them over to private enterprise. I believe the Opposition amendments to the legislation have been put forward with that purpose in mind. Opposition members have shown that their main interest in communications over the years has been to pork barrel their own electorates, to undermine a public service and to try to bolster the assistance given to private enterprise to enable it to make a profit at the expense of the community. This really comes back to the philosophical paranoia they have about public enterprise, the belief that public enterprise, as they see it, will always be inefficient and expensive and should not involve itself in any area where there is some profit to be made. Their paranoia is not reflected in any greater sense than against Telecom because Telecom is the largest employer in Australia, it is a most efficient organisation and it is also profitable. It is all of those things that they believe in their philosophical view a public enterprise cannot be. Over the seven years the previous Government was in office it did everything it could to ensure that Telecom was hindered in its progress. I believe, as I said earlier, that the amendments that the Opposition has put forward are an attempt to do exactly the same thing with the Aussat satellite company as it has been trying to do with Telecom. It has taken no regard of the attitude of the Aussat board to Telecom ownership or a 25 per cent partnership. It has taken no regard of the views of those people who are likely to be the consumers of the satellite . The amendments would do nothing to help the industry at all. Rather, they would create more confusion and would prevent enterprises such as Aussat operating efficiently. Whilst the amendments are aimed in the Opposition's philosophical direction I believe they are actually phoney. The Opposition was really not going to proceed with the amendments until it heard that there was some possibility that it might be able to delay the Bill further in the Senate and gather the support of another party. As a result the Opposition has rushed together a number of amendments. As I pointed out earlier, the amendments themselves are contradictory to the points of view that members of the Opposition have been putting. As I pointed out, on the one hand they are saying that Aussat should operate as a normal company in the free market situation. However, the Opposition would like some special attention to be given to the broadcasting area. The Opposition wants to reserve areas for Aussat. That, then, is counter to the proposition the Opposition is putting that Aussat ought to operate in the free market area. Of course, that is typical of the views that members of the Opposition always put. As one of my colleagues said earlier, they are agrarian socialists. The National Party of Australia has always liked Telecom because the subsidies it gets from the community are hidden in the cross-subsidisation within Telecom. The National Party likes it that way because, as the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) did, they can criticise Telecom, say it is a nasty company that has not done the things that the National Party wants and at the same time receive the benefits that the cross-subsidies provide. Mr Millar —It is not enough. Mr SAUNDERSON —The honourable member says it is not enough. Of course, it never is enough for the National Party which is subsidised in every field right across the board. Of course, members of the National Party tell us that they deserve all these subsidies. The Liberal Party is not so fussed with Telecom. It does not necessarily see why Telecom should remain profitable. So there is a bit of conflict within the coalition. This is probably evident in the fact that few Liberal Party members have bothered to turn up to participate in this debate. From their point of view the legislation is of no interest. As I have said, in our Bill we have quite clearly laid down the role that Aussat will play. It is very important that this has been done at this time because there is not a great deal of time between now and when the satellite is due to be launched. It is essential for Aussat, Telecom and the users of the satellite to understand clearly what they are going to be able to do. They will be in a position of deciding whether they can participate in the satellite or whether the facilities Telecom offers are most suitable. We have now, by putting through this Bill, provided that information which is required by the public. At the same time we have taken care to ensure that the Bill provides protection for the public network. We have clearly laid down that Aussat and Telecom are not to be in competition, certainly not in the areas of providing a national communication network as such, but they will be working together and developing the total network in the most efficient way. That is what will benefit the Australian public most. The other most important benefit that we have put forward is the amendment which will allow Telecom to participate with private companies in the development of new technologies. I think this will be a great boon. It will help Australia's largest company, that is, Telecom, to participate with others in the new industries. It is a pity that the Liberal-National Party, when it was in government, did not take the opportunity that has clearly been available in other countries, of utilising the communications industry as the basis for jumping off into the new industry areas. I wind up by saying that I support the Bill and hope that all honourable members will. I oppose the amendments that will be moved by the Opposition. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr FISHER —Yes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr FISHER —The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) said in his speech that during my comments on this Bill I said that Telecom was a nasty company. I ask him to withdraw that. I never said that. In fact I praised Telecom Australia in my speech. His words are a total misrepresentation. Mr Saunderson —You criticised it for not providing public telephones on every corner. Mr FISHER —I did not. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will not debate the issue; he will just make his personal explanation. Mr FISHER —What I said was that Telecom, by having to buy 25 per cent of the shares in the satellite, would be restricted in its financial capacity to meet its other obligations. I ask him to withdraw. He is careless with the truth and completely inaccurate. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(8.05) —I think we are all grateful for the fact that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) has expressed a very firm commitment to Telecom Australia and his great affection for it. I am pleased that the comments of the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) have so provoked him to put that position on record, because it is always a little difficult for those of us on this side of the House to find out exactly where members of the Opposition stand on questions of public enterprise. Telecom has been one of the most successful areas of public enterprise; so to get that firm commitment and that strong support out of the honourable member for Mallee must be, on this side of the House, regarded as a plus. The Department of Aviation certainly has some degree of interest in, and affection for, the institution of Telecom and, indeed, for public enterprise because the Department of Aviation at least has some indirect responsibility for two other great areas of Australian public enterprise; namely, the two national airlines, Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. The Satellite Communications Bill, which establishes the legal framework within which Aussat Pty Ltd will operate the national satellite system, is of very considerable importance both to the aviation industry and very directly to my Department. Honourable members will have noted that in clause 8(1), which sets out the obligations of the directors of Aussat, the very first obligation that they assume is: The Directors of Aussat shall ensure that, so far as practicable, Aussat is able to meet the requirements for space satellite facilities- (a) of the Commonwealth for the purpose of the provision and maintenance of air navigation facilities and related safety services; Since the possibility of the development of Aussat has been a factor in Australian public policy my Department has taken a very close interest in the development of the system and in the ownership and ultimately the management of it, and understandably so because it is absolutely vital to aviation communications. I do not want to overstate the position, but at least it is true to some degree that there is some sense of relief in the Department that this Bill should be before the House and that commitment, as the first commitment or obligation of the directors of Aussat, placed there in writing, preserving the position of the Department, which will be one of the major users of the system, in ensuring the maintenance of air navigation facilities and related safety services. In speaking to this Bill tonight I propose to outline the responsibilities my Department has to provide a communications network for aircraft, to which that clause and the Bill as a whole directly relate. I will also explain the difficulties of the existing system, and hence the reasons for the development of the aviation satellite communications system that is currently being installed. I think this will demonstrate to honourable members the importance of requiring that Aussat ensure that satellite transponder capacity is available for aviation safety purposes and ensuring that this is provided at fair and equitable tariffs. I think it is necessary for me to do this because quite understandably-I do notice there has been occasional mention by members on both sides of the House of our interest-the bulk of the interest of honourable members has been turned to the value of the system in its information transmitting and entertainment mode and there has been a little bit of a tendency to set aside any consideration and not so much to ignore but at least to overlook the very considerable importance and advance that this is going to provide for the aviation industry. The responsibility of providing an effective aviation communications system constitutes a most significant technological and operational challenge. Honourable members will appreciate that many of the national and international air routes over Australia traverse some of the most sparsely populated areas in the world. In those areas high frequency air-ground communication is presently used. This has inherent limitations-a high noise level, interference from other stations and unpredictability of coverage. The optimum method of communicating with aircraft is by very high frequency radio, and that provides high quality, high reliable communications and a large number of communications channels are available to those equipped with receivers and transmitters. The range of VHF radio, however, is limited to line of sight and hence a large number of outlets strategically placed are necessary to provide suitable coverage. Outlets must at present be connected to the manned air traffic services centre by landline or by departmental microwave radio bearers. Landlines are not available in many remote areas where a considerable bulk of our aviation flies. They require long restoration times after failure and are expensive to operate and maintain. Microwave radio bearers are possible only on heavy trunk routes because of their high cost. High frequency radio is used in remote areas outside VHF coverage. High frequency covers large distances but it has disadvantages. Its range is unpredictable, quality is poor and very few communications channels are available. Many years of planning and evaluation have established that an aviation satellite communications system is an essential and cost-effective element in my Department's strategy to provide the communications for the conduct of safe and reliable air services in Australia. I notice it and I am probably a little more conscious of it than most honourable members of Parliament because I make frequent forays west to my constituency of Swan. I occasionally visit the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) who is heckling me at the moment, in a friendly fashion. Mr Reeves —Yes, you visit often. Mr BEAZLEY —I am aware that those are the areas where there is the greatest degree of difficulty with appropriate radio coverage. When one thinks that a very considerable portion of our international traffic to South East Asia and ultimately to Europe flies out across the centre of Australia, over the north west of the country, then a system which enables, as this will do, a direct path will constitute a very considerable fuel saving which will be very important for the airlines. I was reminded of the significance of that fuel saving recently in discussions with executives of Qantas Airways Ltd who pointed out to me that in 1971 it was possible to fly from London to Sydney and incur the same cost of fuel as it is possible now for that same aircraft to fly from Sydney to about two-thirds of the way across Australia. That is the change that has taken place in the fuel aspect as a factor in the cost of the provision of aviation services which makes the vectoring of flights over the simplest possible route a very important aspect of the cost structure of the aviation industry. The aviation satellite system enables the Department of Aviation to place VHF outlets in optimum sites and to connect them with high quality reliable links to manned air traffic service centres thus enabling the cost effective flexible means of extending VHF cover to aircraft wherever that is required. The system will also provide associated supporting communication between air traffic service centres which will eliminate HF radio for communications between air traffic service units. This will reduce the need for aircraft to carry HF radio. The aviation satellite system to be operated by my Department will be the second largest single Aussat user after the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. We will be leasing four low powered transponders, two in each of the two operational satellites. Detailed cost benefit analyses were undertaken by the Departments of Aviation and Finance in 1982. The aviation segment, as a result of the analysis of those two departments, is estimated to cost $31m over the next five years. It was shown that continuing with present communications systems for aviation would result in a cost which would exceed the cost of the aviation segment of the satellite system by some $35m over the next 20 years. The analysis showed that the cost savings would be about $90m for the present communications systems to be expanded in lieu of the satellite system to meet forecast requirements over the same 20 year period. Those savings are very considerable. That will also be of considerable benefit to the aviation industry. I should say one thing about those savings. They represent the best estimate of the Department of Finance and an agreed estimate between us. I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House are aware that when the Department of Finance calculates other departments' estimates of cost savings in activities undertaken by those departments, it tends to take an appropriately pessimistic view. The fact that it is estimating that level of savings probably means that over that period these savings may well be considerably more than that. I think the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) who has charge of this Bill has himself been through processes of such dual analysis and will probably agree with that conclusion. Mr Duffy —Yes. Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, he does agree with that conclusion. I should emphasise that the cost of the aviation component of the satellite system will be recovered from the aviation industry through user charges. The savings will therefore be an important element in containing increases in charges in the future. It will certainly ensure that, in the area of communications, the sorts of rises that might have been anticipated out of developments in this system will not take place, at least not to that same level. Of course, this is probably one of the most sensitive areas of the whole of aviation policy for any aviation Minister. It is the area in which the Department most directly impacts upon the industry and the area which invariably, as a result of that, the industry feels it has the most grounds of complaint. We have set up an independent inquiry into the cost recovery program of aviation in which the justice or otherwise of the complaints about the cost recovery program may be established, at least for the forseeable future. I think that will be an important inquiry for the industry. However, in advance of that inquiry, I think we can anticipate that one of the things the inquiry will find is that the system being brought into operation will be of very considerable benefit, at least in one area of reducing the impact of developments in aviation communications upon the cost structure of the industry. The aviation satellite communications system which is being installed by my Department has an Australian content of $14m which will provide a very worthwhile job creation spin-off. All antenna dishes and support structures are being manufactured in Australia, plus a large proportion of electronic components. This worthwhile impact on employment prospects results from awarding a satellite ground station equipment contract to NEC Information Systems Australia Pty Ltd which employs more than 400 people here. Between 65 and 90 new jobs will be created at NEC with further job creation prospects related to installation of ground station equipment. In that process I think it could be said that the technical expertise of Australian industry is being improved as it finds itself involved in production in this area. I was pleased recently to visit the NEC plant in Victoria which will undertake this work. My Department is charged under the Air Navigation Act with the responsibility for ensuring the safe and expeditious movement of aircraft within our territory. It must be certain that communications vital to ensuring aircraft safety are always available. The Government has recognised that this responsibility is in the public interest. It is committed, therefore, to ensuring that satellite transponder capacity is available for aviation safety services of any department. As I pointed out when I started, this Bill obliges the directors of Aussat to ensure, as far as practicable, that Aussat is able to meet these requirements. There are other users who are similarly protected in the public interest. The Minister for Communications has referred to these. These requirements have been supplemented by provisions in Aussat's memorandum and articles of association requiring that fair and equitable tariffs be set in respect of these services that Aussat must provide. This question of fair and equitable tariffs, as my Department has taken an interest in the development of the Aussat satellite system, has been a matter of some very considerable concern to the Department. The Department has been aware that many of the benefits to the cost structure of the aviation industry of the development of the satellite system could be lost if an untoward attitude were to be taken by the directors at any point of time to that question of the availability of fair and equitable tariffs. So the fact that this position has been maintained within a corporate structure , which as a government-based corporate structure is likely to be slightly less influenced by the commercial requirements that a wholly or partly owned private system might impose, is a matter for some considerable-again, I probably would be overstating the case if I were to say 'joy'; nevertheless, it would be a matter for some satisfaction in the Department. My Department will be a long term user of the satellite and unable to terminate its use at short notice. It is therefore essential, as I said, that protection to enable both permanent access and fair and equitable tariffs be provided. This will therefore require the directors of Aussat to have regard to the intentions of the Parliament expressed in the Bill. Under the Bill, my Department is entitled to erect its own earth station facilities for transmission of signals to and from the satellites and between the satellite earth stations and its own premises. This will ensure that all links in the communications chain are under the control of my Department, thus enhancing its ability to meet its obligations and responsibilities under the Air Navigation Act. The passage of this Bill is an important step towards the commencement of the operation of the aviation satellite communications system in late 1985. As I said before, and as I think I established pretty clearly, this system will enhance aviation safety through more reliable communications and will help contain costs recovered from the aviation industry. I conclude by congratulating the honourable member for the Northern Territory ( Mr Reeves) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), and our honourable members in the north of Queensland who have taken a very close interest in this legislation during its passage through the House. I also congratulate, of course, the other members of our communications sub-committee who themselves have been very helpful participants in the process. There has been a thoroughgoing awareness on their part, and particularly on the part of honourable members from remote areas, of what very great value this satellite will be for residents in their areas. People in those areas are very aviation conscious; they are aware of the requirements for safe aircraft operations in the very difficult terrain experienced in some more remote areas of Australia. They have good reason to be satisfied with this Bill, with the progress of the Government in regard to this matter and with the obligations imposed upon the directors by this legislation. Therefore, it is with very considerable pleasure that I congratulate the Minister responsible for its passage and commend the Bill to the House. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(8.33) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your attainment of high office. This is the first opportunity I have had to make a speech while you are in the chair and I am very pleased to be able to do so. I noticed several days ago that members of the Opposition tried you on. It was a rather unruly period in the House, I must admit, and I thought you dealt most promptly and efficiently with them. I think they will be very careful when they try taking you on again. I am pleased to express my support for the Satellite Communications Bill 1984 and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. The Bills ensure that the satellite telecommunications system operated by Aussat Pty Ltd and the telecommunications system operated by the Australian Telecommunications Commission will form one Australian national telecommunications system. While the Satellite Communications Bill provides that Aussat will be a wholly owned Commonwealth company, the consequential amendments Bill gives Telecom the necessary powers to acquire 25 per cent of the shareholding in Aussat. I make no secret of the fact that prior to the Federal Australian Labor Party Caucus decision to support the Bills I strongly advocated 100 per cent ownership of Aussat by Telecom. But I was willing to compromise on this matter despite the fact that I firmly believed that the joint development of our national telecommunications network would be undertaken more efficiently and economically if Telecom were in complete control of Aussat. I completely reject the idea that Aussat and Telecom must be in competition with each other to ensure that their separate telecommunication operations will be more profitable. This idea is typical of the doctrinaire approach of members of the Opposition who believe that competition is the answer to all our economic ills. Mr Saunderson —They are luddites. Mr MILTON —Luddites, as the honourable member for Deakin says. Competition between the new services provided by the satellite and the existing public services provided by Telecom would result in a fragmentation of the communications system, with the possibility of duplication in the provision of expensive capital equipment, to the ultimate cost of the Australian taxpayer. Honourable members would be aware of such duplication which has caused overcapacity in the airlines industry. My reason for compromising on this matter is that the Government accepted the argument that the domestic satellite must have total public ownership. Initially , there was some suggestion that Aussat would have 51 per cent government ownership with 49 per cent private ownership. Fortunately, for the future independence of the information and communications services provided to the Australian public, as I mentioned earlier, the Government accepted the overwhelming view of Government members that Aussat should be publicly owned. One can just imagine the kind of distorted news and information services we would receive from a commercially-owned satellite. I appreciate that there is no specific guarantee in the Bills that Aussat will ensure that commercial users of the satellite are prevented from prostituting the minds of the general public. However, a government-owned company, subject as it is to regular government scrutiny, will be in a far better position to require users of the satellite who provide radio and television services to present program material which conforms to certain cultural and intellectual standards. I refer to the threat by both the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats to attempt to block the passage of the legislation in the other place. Mr Reeves —The National Party as well. Mr MILTON —I regret that; I had always thought members of the National Party of Australia were very much in support of public ownership in certain circumstances . Mr Saunderson —Until they saw political opportunism. Mr MILTON —The honourable member is correct; it is political opportunism of the worst kind. One of the Opposition's grounds for opposing the legislation is that purchase of Aussat shares by Telecom would mean an overextension of a government monopoly. Given the present overseas monopolistic control of the international communications networks and the media which use those networks, I find the argument about extending Telecom's monopoly control very hollow indeed. It is clear that the Opposition wants to pass the control of our communications networks to the monopolistic ownership of international capital, with all the dangers of cultural and political oppression which would inevitably follow such control. Contrary to the claim that Telecom buying into Aussat is a waste of taxpayers' money, such a purchase would facilitate a co-operative and economic integration of the services provided by both enterprises, resulting in a saving of taxpayers' money. Competition between Aussat and Telecom would mean that either or both of the enterprises would suffer losses. If losses were suffered by Telecom the result would be an increase in its tariffs in order to recoup those losses. Mr Saunderson —It would be disastrous for country people. Mr MILTON —It would be absolutely disastrous for country people. At present Telecom is able to subsidise the heavy cost of providing domestic rural services from the more profitable services provided to other consumers, but a loss of business to Aussat could mean an increase in the tariffs for rural subscribers. The present estimated cost to Telecom of the uneconomic rural services amounts to $300m at 1983 prices. It is highly likely that the Federal Government would not allow an increase in the rural tariffs and would, therefore, make good to Telecom the total $300m of subsidies from taxpayers' funds. What the Opposition wants is for the profits which could be earned by Aussat at the expense of Telecom to be handed over to private enterprise. Mr Saunderson —That is the rural rump. Mr MILTON —That is right. The Opposition seems to be blissfully unaware, or more probably it does not care, of the grave danger to Australian sovereignty which could arise from foreign capital becoming involved in the ownership of any part of our national telecommunications system. Mr Saunderson —They just could not care less. Mr MILTON —I agree with the honourable member. Make no mistake about it, it would be only a matter of time before foreign capital gained control of Aussat. Of course, we all know what the Opposition is really aiming at. I cannot really believe that it is the view of the Australian Democrats. I am sure that they do not want all the profitable telecommunications services provided by both Telecom and Aussat to be handed over to private enterprise, leaving the non-profitable services, such as those provided to Australians living in rural areas, in the hands of Telecom. It was not my intention in this debate to go over the ground so ably presented by honourable members on this side of the House in their support of the Bills, but I do believe these Bills are vital for the future independence of Australia and to protect it not only from the profit seeking rapaciousness of the overseas millionaire media owners but also from the cultural, economic and political dependence which could result from any part of our national telecommunications system being owned and controlled by media barons, whether they be Australians or foreigners. One does not have to look far to find the private buyers, Mr Rupert Murdoch of the News group and Mr Kerry Packer of Australian Consolidated Press Ltd, waiting in the background with their millions of dollars at the ready. The News group has already attempted to break into satellite and cable television in Europe and America. I was interested today to read an article in the Economist dated 25 February 1984. Mr Saunderson —Is that a socialist publication! Mr MILTON —No, it is a very conservative publication. Under the heading ' Grounded' the Economist states: The arrival of satellite and cable television seems to offer outsiders a chance to start their own broadcasting channels in Europe and America. Mr Murdoch got a skyhold in European broadcasting last year when he bought 68.6 per cent of Satellite Television, a smallish company which broadcasts English-language programmes to cable television operators in Europe. Its original owners were unwilling to invest more in the business and News International picked up the majority holding for #5m. Satellite Television is now broadcasting for five hours a day and will reach 1 million homes by mid-1984. But it will take at least another three years before it breaks even. That is the sort of thing that Rupert Murdoch wants to do here in Australia. Bearing in mind that monopolies must always grow larger and diversify if they are to survive, the domestic satellite and the profitable opportunities it offers in a wide variety of aspects of the communications industry is a plum ripe for the picking. Of course, the Australian media barons are not the only wolves hanging around for chunks of our domestic satellite. The United States of America has many wealthy corporations just itching for a share of the satellite action. I will quote for the House from a book by Anthony Smith entitled The Geopolitics of Information. There are two aspects of the problem which arises if private capital plays any part in the operation of the domestic satellite. The first passage I will quote deals with Indonesia. I will be referring to SBS. Honourable members should know that SBS is the acronym for Satellite Business Systems which is a new United States corporate giant in telecommunications. It states: One great fear is that developing nations could be tempted to do deals with SBS in their anxiety to obtain its cheap and reliable services, perhaps in exchange for the offer of help for governmental communications, and will only later discover the extent to which they have become dependent upon Comsat and IBM. They comprise the new SBS. The passage continues: Countries like Indonesia, with its Hughes Aircraft-built 'Palapa' satellite, have already begun to realize how many of their national communication services (telephones, data, newspaper content, education) have come to rely on the satellite, which ultimately still remains in the control of NASA, which launched it, as well as the company which manufactured it. No nation is secure against coercion which is not secure against eaves-dropping and modern communications systems are in this sense always vulnerable to the nations and organizations which have created them. Even with the most sophisticated encryption devices, the company which made the code is able to break the code. The following quotation deals with the cultural and technological dependence of Canada on the United States of America. In considering these quotations we have to bear in mind that there are many similarities in the telecommunications field with the Canada of the 1970s and the Australia of the 1980s. The passage states: The paradox of Canada's dependence is that the use of modern telecommunication links of all kinds is greater than that of any nation on earth. She has used domestic satellites to bring television and telephone services to her scattered population since 1973 and half of her population was cabled by 1978. . . . American political trends are adopted in Canada as if by a law of nature- for example, the current mood favouring 'de-regulation'- honourable members of the Opposition are very fond of deregulation- in the field of telecommunications which started up during the early months of the Carter administration has fed itself into Canada, where regulatory requirements are probably rather different from those of her larger neighbour. Where Pay-TV, satellite, cable networks and completely 'free' radio frequencies may be the best next stage in the US, the maintenance of national controls on new developments might be better for Canada, but the doctrines and ideologies which develop south of the border spread relentlessly, to the detriment of Canada's own self-management. Is this where we are going? Let me quote again: The tragic paradox of Canada's technological advances is that they consist of ingenious devices (satellites, microwave, cables, etc.) for reaching the distant communities of Canada-English, French, Eskimo-who have hitherto been preserved from the American onslaught. Canada has now constructed a telecommunications system of great sophistication which will enable all Canadians, however distant from the US frontier, to be subjected to the same flow as the rest of the country. What does this mean? It also states: Canada's own Anik satellite may soon be sending out four complete television network signals throughout its entire territory, while adding a few Canadian signals for the remoter areas which cannot yet receive them . . . Since I have a little time left, there is another quote I would like to make which is very important in relation to these Bills. It states: Clearly, other nations will not see the future in quite the same way, although a 'de-regulatory' mood is sweeping over much of Western Europe including Britain under the Thatcher administration. Inforcing its transnational giants into an intensified competition, America is in effect inducing them to challenge further the indigenous control of data in all of the countries across which the American giants will conduct their economic warfare. There we have it. It is this kind of dependence which the Opposition would allow to occur in Australia in deference to its sacred cow, private enterprise. Mr Saunderson —Will it improve television reception in the Dandenongs? Mr MILTON —I am glad that the honourable member for Deakin mentioned the television reception in the Dandenong ranges. I notice that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is here and I would like to make a little comment about this while I have a few moments. Yesterday the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) mentioned that the satellite would be able to improve television reception in the Dandenong ranges. Unfortunately, I have to tell my constituents who are listening that the satellite will not have sufficient surplus capacity for such a purpose. Mr O'Neil —Shame. Mr MILTON —I feel the same way. As the Minister knows, I have every confidence that this problem is being dealt with by the Department of Communications. In fact today I have written to the Secretary to the Department about the current progress on the matter. As I say, I have every confidence that the matter will be cleared up very shortly. Mr Porter —Why didn't you ask the Minister? Is he of the wrong faction? Mr MILTON —I have written to the Minister and the Minister has told me that there is progress on this matter and that is why I have every confidence. I will see the Secretary to the Department next week and we will have the matter cleared up in no time. I strongly commend these Bills to the House as enshrining one of the most important projects undertaken by an Australian Labor Party Federal government. I congratulate the Minister. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(8.53) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications ( Consequential Amendments) Bill because they probably represent one of the most significant advances made, as far as the application of technology to the communications network in Australia is concerned, that this country has ever seen. Mr Simmons —It is a milestone. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Calare refers to it, a milestone. It is a milestone not only as far as Australian communications are concerned but also as far as the great achievements of this Government are concerned. Prior to the election a very clear undertaking was given by this Government in connection with a number of different directions that could be taken. One of the reasons we received such overwhelming support from the Australian people on 5 March last year was the realisation on their part that an Australian Labor Party government would be concerned about those types of things with which we have been traditionally, historically and, I hope, continuously concerned. I refer to questions of social welfare, equity and justice. People knew that the ALP national Government would be concerned about national issues, including the capacity of Australia to ensure that it remains with countries which lead the world in the field of communications technology. I wish to pay a very special tribute to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) who has had the responsibility for ensuring that this legislation came before the Parliament. The Minister has become well known throughout Australia as an extremely competent and extremely capable Minister who has been prepared to show a great deal of initiative in his approaches not only to the development of technology but, just as importantly, to the ownership and management of that technology. One of the most interesting contributions made to this debate came from my friend the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson). One of the main reasons for John Saunderson's contribution was so clearly-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the honourable member address him as the honourable member for Deakin? Mr ROBERT BROWN —Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Milton —He is a good member too. Mr ROBERT BROWN —He is an outstanding member. One of the reasons the honourable member for Deakin is so well informed about this question is that he was an industrial officer with the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. He is also a past President of the Victorian branch of that union and, together with the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), retains current membership of that union. In addition to all the expert advice that the Government calls on in order to ensure that it is properly advised and informed about all the issues involved, there is no question of the depth and competence of those members of the Government who are available to it within the forums of the Party and the Government to advise us adequately and give us the great benefit of the depth and breadth of their experience in this important industry. In considering the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill, I wish to indicate a very real concern which I have. It involves the attitude which has been adopted by members of the Opposition who have spoken on these Bills. One would think from the way in which they lauded Telecom Australia that they were among the chief champions and the chief defenders of Telecom. Their record proves that the contrary is the case. We are all well aware, and people involved in the telecommunications industry in Australia and outside Australia are well aware, of the biased nature of the terms of reference which were given to the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia which had a responsibility to report on Telecom. We are well aware also of the recommendations that were made by the Davidson committee as a result of those biased terms of reference. Had those recommendations been applied and notice been served by the Fraser Government that it was the intention of that Government to implement those proposals, it would have torn Telecom apart. Those recommendations and the implementation of them would have been responsible for the destruction of one of the greatest public institutions, one of the greatest public authorities, one of the most important assets which belongs to the Australian people and one of the most important assets that the Australian people have ever owned. We have made it perfectly clear that we will defend not only the opportunity for authorities, institutions and corporations of this kind to continue to operate and to continue to operate effectively but also we will make sure as a Labor government that the assets of the Australian people are adequately protected. There will be more opportunity for the Australian people to benefit from the great potential and the great opportunities that exist within this nation for the people collectively, through the operation of this Government and of public enterprise, to share in the opportunities that exist in relation to so many different forms of development that are taking place in Australia. We do not deny and have never denied the tremendous importance of the private sector in the Australian economy but we are equally emphatic in insisting that the public sector, the people's sector, the people's collective centre in Australia, is equally important. In fact in Australia we have been able to bring about a very effective, constructive and fruitful marriage of the public and private sectors. It concerns me when I see the paranoia-I think it was referred to by the honourable member for Deakin-on the part of those who sit on the Opposition benches now about the public sector. We know that the implementation of the recommendations of the Davidson committee report would have been responsible for selling off from Telecom its most profitable areas of operation. How is it possible for members of the National Party, in particular, to advance these propositions? The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton)-- Mr Saunderson —Where are they? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am glad that the honourable member for Deakin draws my attention and the attention of the House to the fact that at this stage there is only one member of the National Party in this chamber. (Quorum formed). Despite the fact that a quorum was called by a member of the Liberal Party, look at the National Party benches. Not one member of the National Party has come into the House. Although the provision of the satellite communication system, Aussat, is of such tremendous importance for people in all of those rural areas in Australia, people in the distant parts of each of the States, people in those far-flung mining areas, the members of the National Party are not in the House. Where is their concern? Clarrie Millar has just arrived, the only decent member- oh, and there is the other member of the National Party who was here before, the honourable member for Murray. Mr Shipton —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that the honourable member address members by their proper names, that is by the names of their electorates and not by their first names. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The point of order is upheld. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Higgins is perfectly aware of the fact that there is no point of order. In connection with the matter that I was raising about the tremendous importance of communication facilities of this kind to all those vast distances of Australia, I just emphasise a point that was raised by the honourable member for La Trobe. In connection with the provision of services to isolated rural areas-the very uneconomic services-he said that the degree of cross-subsidisation within Telecom represents a figure in current prices of something like $300m a year. That means that those profitable services of Telecom which the National Party and its cohorts in the Liberal Party wanted to sell off make it possible to cross-subsidise and ensure that those facilities are available to the people in the rural areas whom members of the National Party purport to represent. Dr Theophanous —They don't represent them. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Burke suggests that they do not represent them. If they purport to represent them, they certainly do not do it very effectively. That assertion can be made about them not only in New South Wales but also in Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Mr Goodluck —Not in Tasmania. Mr ROBERT BROWN —In all of those areas. Mr Lloyd —I raise a point of order. We have been very tolerant about people not actually sticking to the legislation, but this is becoming an absurd situation. The point of order is that the honourable member should either speak to the Bill or sit down. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member should indicate some embarrassment about his Party. Members of the National Party had to be dragged in by the scruff of their necks. Half of them, of course, are still outside. That does not surprise us. Mr Shipton —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out that the honourable member for Murray has had the conduct of this business for the Opposition in this House and is a member of the National Party. I point that out to the honourable member. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Porter —And is here. Mr Shipton —And is here and has been here during the whole debate. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I have already acknowledged that there is one member of the National Party, alone, in this chamber. Mr Shipton —I rise again on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment about there being only one member of the National Party present in the chamber, because that is not true. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Madam Deputy Speaker, what I meant to say was that six members of the National Party are equivalent to one member of the Labor Party. Under the previous Government-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will return to the Bill. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I certainly will. The position is that under the previous Government the potential users of Aussat simply had no idea what the arrangements or what conditions would be put on their access to Aussat. That was the situation under the previous Government. All those potential users throughout Australia who wanted to determine the conditions under which they would be allowed access to Aussat and the terms of those conditions were in a state of absolute and complete confusion after seven years of the Fraser Liberal Government-absolute confusion, absolute chaos. We have been in office now for a couple of days in excess of 12 months and the question has been resolved. The confusion has been eliminated. All the potential users of Aussat know exactly now under what conditions they will be provided with access to that facility and precisely what the terms will be. The three million square miles of Australia, with all of those people in so many-- Mrs Kelly —How many square kilometres is that? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am not sure what it is in square kilometres, and neither is anyone else. Mr Barry Jones —I think it is 7.8 million square kilometres. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member forget about the kilometres and get on with the Bill. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I thank the Minister for Science and Technology for indicating that it is 7.8 million square kilometres. News, information and entertainment which have been available to people in the larger and smaller urban areas in Australia also will now increasingly be made available to people in other parts of Australia. The honourable member for La Trobe expressed some concern about the possibility that this legislation may be either delayed in the Senate or rejected by the Senate. I do not believe for a moment that that will be so. I genuinely believe that the Australian Democrats will adopt a very responsible attitude in relation to this legislation. I must confess, there have been occasions in the past, particularly in connection with questions like the bottom of the harbour legislation and our attempt to recoup that $570m which should have come back to the Government, when I have been very concerned about the attitude adopted by the Democrats. But I believe, on questions which are as unequivocal as this and which are so obviously important to the Australian people, especially those in the outback areas, that the Democrats will act with the greatest degree of responsibility, and I hope that the independent senator from Tasmania will also show sufficient concern about this matter to record a sensible and intelligent vote. I feel convinced that they will-and I hope they will. I appeal to them to do so. The Bills together express the Government's intention that the telecommunications system provided by Telecom and the satellite communications system provided by Aussat Pty Ltd shall together form one national telecommunications network for Australia. I am particularly pleased that the provisions of this legislation will ensure that Aussat essentially remains within public hands. There is provision within the legislation for 25 per cent of Aussat to be sold off to Telecom. In fact, the Minister for Communications advised us during the debate on this legislation that he expects that 25 per cent ownership will be taken up by Telecom, I think towards the middle of the year. But it will remain a public enterprise. I shudder to think of the implications in the future if it ever were to happen that the whole communications system and media network in Australia was concentrated in private hands. I have a very healthy respect for the private sector. I give great credit to the private sector for providing a great deal of initiative and the generation that helps to keep this nation moving forward. But there are critical and very important areas of national interest, the interests of the Australian people collectively and individually, in which the public sector must remain involved. One of those is in the area of communications. Mr BARRY JONES(Labor-Minister for Science and Technology)(9.13) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I begin by congratulating you, as I neglected to do this afternoon, on your elevation to your high office. I do not know whether this is an augury of things to come, but you will be aware that the new Governor-General of Canada was elevated from the position of Deputy Speaker to Speaker and then to Governor -General. You have two essential characteristics in common with her; the first, being elected as a member of parliament and the second, being of the feminine gender. I congratulate you on your attaining this high office. The Satellite Communications Bill is a landmark Bill, marking a futher stage in the expansion of our communications system in Australia. It is not the final stage, but an important intermediate step. I know that the House would want me to express the interest of my Department and my personal interest in its implications for science and technology in Australia. This huge continent of ours, which is virtually the size of the continental United States of America but with only one -fourteenth of its population, has suffered, to use that useful phrase coined by Geoffrey Blainey, from 'the tyranny of distance'. The cost of transport has been enormous. From early stages of our history it has been essential to have effective and reliable communications links. That is one of the reasons why we were among the first nations in the world to have effective telephone services. As early as the 1880s-a century ago-there were effective telephone links in a number of Australian cities beginning, I think, in Ballarat-the city of my colleague the honourable member for Ballarat ( Mr Mildren). Mr Beazley —We were also very early users of the wheel. Mr BARRY JONES —I would go further and say that we were early users of fire as well. We are moving into a new economic era-the age of information. We will have increasing dependence on information. My calculation is that, although people in Australia have been slow to recognise it, there are already more people employed in information processing, broadly defined, than are employed in mining, agriculture and manufacturing combined. That is to say, just over 30 per cent of our labour force is involved in the processing of symbols or symbolic objects, such as words, sounds, images and numbers-all of the things that can be transmitted through a wire or through the air. Mr Saunderson —And by satellite. Mr BARRY JONES —Or by satellite. We have seen some marvels in technology in the last few years and there are many more to come. Australia has actually been quite slow in getting into the satellite business. I will talk about the development of satellite technology for a few minutes. A number of countries have been involved in satellite technology for a long time. For example, Canada, with a population only one-tenth the size of that of the United States and also with a very large area, has developed a world expertise in communications technology. Canada is acknowledged as among the world leaders. I think it is fair to say of the Canadians that they have focused their efforts in certain areas more effectively than Australia had until the Labor Government came to office. In the last 12 months we have been concentrating our efforts in a number of areas and I hope we will make a significant contribution to information technology. The Canadians have had their own satellites since 1973. They were actually into satellites and communications technology before the United States. The Canadians were first and the United States followed in 1975. The next country in order- this will come as a surprise to many honourable members-is one of our close neighbours, Indonesia. As honourable members would recognise, Indonesia, as an archipelago, suffered from very great political and economic problems which were complicated by a lack of effective transport links. It was absolutely essential for that Government, if it were to communicate effectively and safely without the risk of the breakdown of normal terrestrial systems, to have a satellite. The result is that, poor country though Indonesia is, at a very early stage in its development Indonesia was prepared to put up a satellite. Indonesia was in the field by 1976. India put up its satellite in 1982 and Japan in 1983. More than a dozen other countries operate national satellite systems through capacity which is leased from Intelstat. Firm contracts for satellite systems similar to the Australian system have been placed by Mexico, Brazil and the Arab nations. We have come to take for granted our dependence on satellite technology. We have become so used to seeing the picture of the weather map of Australia with the indication of where the clouds are that we have come almost to take it for granted, yet it is a great technological miracle which I am glad to say is brought to Australia every day via my Department because the Bureau of Meteorology picks up the service from the Japanese. The Japanese provide the satellite. I add that they provide the satellite absolutely free of charge to us . It is the responsibility of the user to provide his own service but the Japanese do not charge. They have a satellite which is fixed in space 36,000 kilometres up and just north of Papua New Guinea. It remains in that position and in a single sweep takes in the whole of the eastern hemisphere. Those honourable members who have looked at the pictures on television, those who have seen the extraordinary enlargements of photographs of all that can be picked up in a single fixation will see just how amazing that technology really is. We are really only in the early stages of this highly sophisticated communications technology, and there is more to come. As everyone knows, Australia's first two satellites will go up in 1985. There will be two, one in July and one in October, of that year. They will be taken up to an altitude of approximately 250 kilometres by the space shuttle. They will then be released from the shuttle and, by their own rocket power, will go directly above the equator in about the same position as the existing Japanese weather satellite. They will be at an altitude of 36,000 kilometres and there they will remain, we hope, for the next seven years. In case they do not, of course, there is always that expensive insurance premium about which the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) keeps laughing all the time. But let us hope that everything goes very well when the two satellites go up. Before the end of each seven-year period of life a new set of satellites will be launched to replace the first series. A major objective of the Australian satellite program has been to achieve a substantial degree of Australian content. That is why we have placed a very heavy emphasis on the significance of offsets coming out of the program. It is also essential that we make use of this as part of our strategy of creating high technology employment areas. Of the 16 sunrise industries, communications technology is one of the most important. We see it as having not just employment significance but also direct and indirect economic significance and, I would think, strategic significance for us because it is an important element of establishing our own technological autonomy. Previous governments, particularly from the Menzies era on, took it for granted that the best thing Australia could do would be simply to buy its technology off the shelf. There never was any real sense of developing our own technology and attempting to export it to the world in the way that the Swedes, the Norwegians and the Dutch have done. We grew up with that tradition which, in Canada, they very usefully call truncated development. Truncated development meant that essentially technological strategies, the strategies of the major companies in high technology, were all determined at head office. When one asked 'What strategy is there for research and development in the country that is acting at the behest of head office?' the answer given was 'There is no research and development capacity; that is not part of the object.' If one then asked 'What are your plans for marketing overseas, what is the strategy for that?', the answer again would be 'There is no such strategy; it is not intended that you get your products and market them overseas.' If one asked 'What capacity have you for product adaptation?' again the answer would be 'None; it is intended that these local branch offices of Ford, General Motors, Hertz or ICI should be just that and nothing else.' Of course, people like John Elliot criticise Australian companies for being non-competitive. Of course they are not. They were never designed to be competitive. In fact, the whole way in which they were created made it quite impossible for them to make any contribution by exporting Australian technology, know-how or finished products to the world. To ask them to compete in the world is simply to require of them something of which they are not capable. It is like asking of an invertebrate that it show a bit of backbone ; it is not structured to do it; it cannot do it. You must not ask it to do what it is not supposed to do. That is why in Australia we have suffered from this long tradition of truncated development. Dr Theophanous —Ericssons. Mr BARRY JONES —And L.M. Ericsson of course. Sweden has three major companies producing cars and trucks which sell on world markets. When one looks at Australia one sees five assemblers of products designed by people who are cleverer than we are which are not designed to go anywhere except service quite a small, and in some ways, a declining domestic market need. With Aussat and the Australian satellite we are looking for employment opportunities in areas such as satellite systems design, satellite manufacture and operation and earth station design and construction, particularly in export related small earth station manufacture. The program has provided employment opportunities in sophisticated computer software development and advanced electronics. What about industry participation? The tragedy there is that because of the persistent sabotage of our capacity by the preceding Government in this country it is not altogether easy to find appropriate partners who can take up the opportunities that are there. The offsets program has been run down for years. My colleague the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe)-who I hope will follow me in the debate-has turned this situation around with the enthusiastic support of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). Australian industry participation in the major contracts let today includes orders to the value of 30 per cent of the spacecraft and ground control-- Mr Shipton —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister should speak to the Bills before the House. Whilst what he is saying is very interesting indeed, it does not seem relevant. Mr O'Neil —Is this the year of small business? Mr Shipton —I thank the honourable member for his reference. I hope I have his support for that. However I do raise a serious point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I am sure the Minister is paying attention to the fact that we are debating cognately the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill and he will relate his remarks to them. Mr BARRY JONES —Indeed, Mr Speaker. I was speaking directly to the employment prospects which would come up by the fact that offsets and industry participation in that program would enable very significant employment opportunities to be created specifically related to the satellite. Orders to the value of 30 per cent of the spacecraft and ground control equipment contracts will be placed by Hughes, the prime contractor in Australia. That is worth $50m. Sub-contracts for direct Australian content to the value of $5.4m have been let by Hughes to Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd and Standard Telephones and Cables Pty Ltd for contributions in the programming of the stations and wiring harness for satellite operation. Australian content in the Mitsubishi major earth stations contract will be near 50 per cent and that is worth of the order of $16m. Australian content in the various small earth station contracts awarded would be of a lesser amount but of the order of $0.35m. Earth station building contracts total in the order of $25m to $30m in value. Current expectations are that all but $1m of this amount will be spent in Australia. The other matter that is very important to me as Minister for Science and Technology with regard to this Bill is the opportunity that it gives for technology transfer. In this country we have tended to see technology transfer as a one way movement. It is true that Australia, with its comparatively small population, will always be a net technology importer. The only country in the world that is not a net technology importer is the United States of America. Nevertheless I would like to see a bit of two way participation. I would like to think that we could make a contribution, that we could produce more value added products which would enable us to have a higher profile internationally in this high technology world. The system design and the overall technical specifications for Aussat were prepared by Australian engineers with support from overseas consultants. An Aussat engineering and technical support team comprising about 15 Australian satellite design and operation specialists is working right now at the Hughes plant in the United States. This team will have the responsibility of the oversight of the satellite construction and launch arrangements. It will monitor and report overall technical requirements. When we get towards the time of the satellite launch in 1985 it is expected that the team will return to Australia suitably experienced to participate in the actual launch process. After that the monitoring and controlling of the satellite system will be under the control of what by then will be the uniquely experienced group of Australian experts in satellite technology. As transfer to Australia of this advanced aerospace technology has commenced at an early date, less reliance on overseas engineering assistance will be necessary during the design, tendering and construction phases of later generations of Australian satellites. A current estimate of the additional employment that current and future contracts will create is in excess of 1,000 jobs. These jobs will be in a wide variety of skills as well as being spread throughout Australia. The tasks of current Aussat employees are all in leading edge technology applications. They will provide a valuable resource for advice and guidance to Australian industry. The time will come, and it is not very far off, when we should not think of the communication of satellite technology as being a passive one way process. I think all of us are interested in the prospects that we will have a genuine two- way process in which there will be a reaction by the consumer. If the consumer has a particular need for information he will be able to get that information very readily out of the satellite system and out of data banks from all over the world. As I said earlier, we have been very slow to recognise the significance of these changes. We must not take this technology for granted. We have to understand it. We have to develop a very positive and creative response to it. I think a very strong case has been argued that in some ways television has had some negative effects, that it has pushed a lot of people in the direction of zombyism and that perhaps in some cases it has reduced the capacity of people to use their language and their own creativity. People tend simply to sit, gaze at the box and not react positively. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) gives a splendid inpersonation which I know is not characteristic of him. We have to make sure that we make use of this technology, that we Australianise it as far as we can while recognising it is an international technology. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(9.33) —I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Conseqential Amendments) Bill, part of which seeks to extend the powers of Telecom Australia to enable that organisation to involve itself in joint ventures with other organisations. As an ex-employee of Telecom, I realise the vast potential that Telecom has which was strangled by the previous Liberal-National Party Government. We have heard previous speakers tonight talk about the magnificent advantages that this legislation will have for country Australia. One wonders where the honourable members are who always purport to represent them. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) once again railed against Telecom's intervention in anything. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar)-(Quorum formed) Mr Speaker, we now have two more National Party members in the chamber. Mr Simmons —Three more; they don't care. Mr LEO McLEAY —We have three more. That shows how little they care about rural Australia. As my colleague the honourable member for Calare, who represents one of the great country seats in this country, says, the National Party has no interest in what happens to rural Australia. If we were slinging some mud tonight, National Party members would be in here, but when it comes to doing something sensible for the country-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member speak to the subject matter of the Bill. Mr LEO McLEAY —They take absolutely no interest in what happens in this Parliament. All they are here for is to dig dirt. Mr Shipton —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask that the honourable member speak to the Bill. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Higgins should listen. Before he raised his point of order I suggested to the honourable member for Grayndler that he return to the Bill. I call the honourable member for Grayndler. Mr LEO McLEAY —As I was saying, this Bill has great relevance. Great interest has been raised about it in rural Australia. It will provide significant benefits for all those who live outside the metropolitan areas of Australia. I am surprised that the only people who have taken an interest in this Bill this evening are the Labor Party members, the Government members. There are over 40 Government members in the House tonight to support this Bill, yet there are only half a dozen members of the Opposition-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Grayndler get to the Bill. Mr LEO McLEAY —Government members are very much in favour of providing benefits for rural Australia, as this Bill will do. This Bill will go a long way towards providing some equality between people who live in the city and those who live in the country-- Dr Klugman —If Parliament were televised people could see it for themselves. Mr LEO McLEAY —The only thing that frightens me, as my colleague the honourable member for Prospect says, is that if we ever televised the proceedings of this House via satellite the people of rural Australia would see who was looking after their interest, that is, the Government members and not the non-existent Opposition members. A positive advantage of this Bill would be that rural people could see via satellite television exactly who was looking after their interests in this House. I am rather surprised by the rantings of the members of the Opposition who talk about how terrible it is that the Government is to give Telecom a share in Aussat Pty Ltd. One has to examine what motives are behind this attitude. As I said earlier in this debate, I am very proud to say that I used to be an employee of Telecom, as was one of my colleagues. Telecom has a very proud role as the largest public corporation in the country. It is an organisation which has a significant approach to high technology and a very large work force which has a great degree of technological competence. It has a very skilled work force and high-calibre management. Telecom can do the job for Australia. But the Opposition members do not ever want to see Telecom have anything to do with anything that might be profitable. While they were in government they were trying to sell off all the profitable parts of Telecom. It was trying to truncate any attempt by Telecom to get into something that would provide a benefit for Australia. But the provisions of this Bill that allow Telecom to purchase 25 per cent of Aussat will go a long way to getting Telecom into those areas where it can make a profit and where it can participate in high technology transfer. We saw the previous Government attempt to sell off the high technology areas of Telecom. We saw it keep Telecom out of videotext. We saw it sell off Telecom's capacity for installing the new technology PABX. We saw it in one area try to sell off anything that was profitable that Telecom did because it always wanted to be able to make the argument, when it came to Telecom wanting a share of Aussat, that Telecom did not have any of the experience. The reason it would not have had it, if the previous Government had had its way, is that it would have sold off Telecom's profitable and experienced areas to its mates. That is what is behind the Opposition's dislike of this present legislation. The Opposition's plan, as all Government members know, was to sell the satellite to its mates. The Government was going to pay for it and it was going to give it to them for practically nothing. The present Government's policy is radically different and it is important for all Australians, because the present Government's policy will allow Telecom to take up only 25 per cent of Aussat's shareholding, but it will provide for Aussat a great amount of managerial back-up and high technology support in the areas of Aussat's activities. I think that is a very important thing and a very sensible thing for the Government to do. The Government recognises the capacity of its own telecommunications authority and it marries that with a profitable area of satellite communications. Mr Robert Brown —It will be a great operation. Mr LEO McLEAY —As the honourable member for Hunter says, it will be a great operation-the marrying of two of Australia's most important public undertakings. But the Opposition is against that. The reason, of course, is that the Opposition is against anything that is progressive. It would really like to take us back to the days of the luddites. The Opposition does not like the idea of Australia getting into twenty-first century technology. It would prefer us to do anything and everything to ensure that the private sector does all these things as long as the Government pays for it. That is not going to wash with this Government and it is not going to wash with this proposal. As the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) said when he introduced this Bill: Most importantly, the Bill entrenches in the Telecommunications Act 1975 the intention of Parliament that the telecommunications system operated by Telecom Australia and the satellite system operated by Aussat shall together constitute the national telecommunications network for Australia. That is a very laudable proposal. Why is the Opposition against that? Anyone who is sensible would say that that is what we ought to be doing, we ought to be using the Government's expertise and doing our best to see that we get better value for our money. The Opposition's idea, of course, is that the Government will put it up and then will lease it out for peanuts to some of the Opposition' s friends. But it always amazes my why the Opposition is afraid of Telecom. Mr Darling —Why are they? Mr LEO McLEAY —I do not know, but I think that the Opposition's problem with Telecom is that Telecom now-- Mr Chynoweth —Has it got something to do with phone tapping? Mr LEO McLEAY —Well, it could be, it very well could be. The Opposition would probably like to use Telecom to tap all of us if it had the chance. But it always amazes me, when one looks at who the Ministers for Communications are in Liberal-National Party governments or who the shadow Ministers are in Liberal- National Party oppositions. As I said earlier, we had the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd)-a National Party member. Now when in government the National Party was very keen to bleed Telecom as much as it could. It did not mind making Telecom a sop for what it wanted to do with its mates. We saw what the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) did for his relations on Lord Howe Island. He did not mind taking up all of Telecom's capital works appropriate for the north coast of New South Wales so that he could install, when he was Minister for Communications, a new telephone system for his father- in-law. But when Telecom came up with something progressive, something where Telecom could make some money for the Australian Government and the Australian taxpayers , honourable members opposite said: 'Oh, this is terrible and disgraceful. We cannot have this sort of profit-making by a public corporation'. They are all in favour of using Telecom to put in little rural telephone exchanges and for cross -subsidising rural dwellers with the costs of telephone calls at city rates. They are in favour of that, but will they give Telecom a share of a very profitable business? Goodness me, no, we have to save that for private enterprise! I think that is disgraceful, and everyone on this side of the House believes that is disgraceful. They cannot rob public companies for their own gain and then, when in Opposition, say: 'Why should the Government let them get into something profitable?' Mrs Darling —Why do they hate Telecom? Mr LEO McLEAY —This legislation will allow Telecom to get somewhere. As the honourable member for Lilley says, why do they hate Telecom? They do not mind using Telecom to help their friends on Lord Howe Island or to put in very expensive facilities for their friends, but when it comes to allowing Telecom to make some money, they say that is a disgrace. Is it not terrible that a public corporation should be allowed to make a profit! My goodness, why should we ever allow that? That is what the Opposition is saying here in opposition to this legislation. Mr Fisher —Who said that? Tell me somebody who said that? Mr LEO McLEAY —We do not want to hear from the peanuts on that side. Honourable members opposite base most of their opposition on the fact that they say the problem lies with the terrible Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. I was very proud to be on the branch council of that union in New South Wales. Honourable members opposite hate the ATEA because the ATEA has stuck up for the role of Telecom. It has said, as the union that represents the people in the industry, that Telecom should remain a public corporation. The reason those opposite do not like the ATEA and try to use it as a whipping boy is that the ATEA has consistently exposed all the rorts that the previous Government was up to in trying to truncate Telecom's operations. The ATEA kept the previous Minister for Communications, the right honourable member for New England, about as honest as it could. The reason it did that was because it is in favour of a public corporation making a profit. It is in favour of a public corporation doing the best for Australia. I think it is very important, Mr Speaker, in addressing this legislation which will allow Telecom to take up 25 per cent of Aussat's capital, that one should have a close look at Telecom. The reason the Opposition is against the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill is that it does not want Telecom to be involved in satellite communications. It is also important that we look at the management of Telecom, at the interaction between the management of Telecom and the union involved, and at the fear the Opposition seems to have of that union, because that is at the root of a lot of its opposition to this amendment. Of course, the Opposition says that the ATEA is anti-Telecom management. That is manifestly not true. In fact, I draw the attention of the House to a speech by Bill Mansfield, the Federal Secretary of the ATEA, to the Department of Communications conference ' Australia's Communications-Where Now?'. Mr Mansfield, in his speech to that very important conference, said: Although we all have arguments with Telecom management from time to time I believe all would acknowledge the achievements of both Telecom management and Telecom employees who together have established for Australia a modern telecommunications system which is available at a reasonable price to all Australians. That is the role that Telecom has had, even with the interference of National Party Ministers in the past. The management of Telecom is efficient and effective. The role of the ATEA in assisting the people who work in that industry is also efficient and effective. It will have quite an important role to play in this satellite communications system for Australia. It does not help anyone to say that the ATEA is opposed to this and to that and that we should not give Telecom a role in satellite communications in Australia because of the union. That is a fallacious argument. Those people on the other side who dislike the union because it exposed all their rorts in the past want to have some tame-cat organisation, or preferably some private organisation, that will allow them to put pressure on it secretly to get all the crook things done in providing communication facilities that they got done in the past. With a public corporation running the satellite and with Telecom having a role to play in that public corporation, that would not happen. I think that is most important. I can see no reason why anyone in this House would oppose these amendments. It will do magnificent things for people in rural Australia. It will provide for diversification of Telecom, the largest public corporation in this country. It is sensible that that large corporation should be allowed to diversify. It will also allow Australia Post access to the satellite. Honourable members who read their mail will have seen, in recent days, that Australia Post made a very significant announcement about electronic mail. Who would the Opposition want to be involved in electronic mail? Mr Bilney —Their mates. Mr LEO McLEAY —Probably their mates, rather than the post office. We have already seen what some of their mates had to do with tapping telephones. My goodness, the last thing one would want is having one's mates having something to do with opening up one's mail. So it is most important that Australia Post be involved in the satellite and that Australia Post be allowed to develop the extensive proposals that it has for electronic mail services in Australia. But if the Opposition had its way it would say that that also ought to be handed over to private enterprise. It would let Australia Post run the very expensive ordinary mail system but it would not let it get into anything where Australia Post could make some profits and maybe offset the costs of the ordinary letter post. Opposition members are all into the old dictum of the Country Party- socialising their losses and capitalising their gains. They want to see anything that the Government runs that makes a profit sold off or to prevent any government organisation from having any access to something that can make a profit. That is not what this Government will do. This Government will have these amendments passed here tonight. This Bill will give Telecom, the largest and most successful Government corporation in Australia, access to Aussat. It will allow Telecom's management, with the assistance of the ATEA, to have a role to play in that organisation. It will allow Telecom to diversify and Australia Post to develop its proposals for electronic mail, which will be to the benefit of all Australians in both rural and city areas. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.53) —I would like to speak in this debate tonight although my comments may not be as long and as truncated as some of those we have heard tonight. I have been fascinated as I have listened to this very important debate on the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications ( Consequential Amendments) Bill because I was not aware that as many honourable members had an interest in this matter as have demonstrated that capacity tonight by speaking on this matter. In fact, I was surprised that some nine Government honourable members came out to speak on this matter, including two Ministers. Mr Speaker, you know that the premium on the time of this Parliament has meant that, on other important items of legislation, rarely have we been given time of this order to address ourselves to the important questions involved in those proposals. Mr Duffy —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Dundas indicated that his remarks would not be as truncated as some he had heard this evening, but I wonder whether they could, so he can be a bit relevant to the Bill. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr RUDDOCK —The point that I wanted to make is that I have been quite fascinated at the large number of speeches that I have heard on these two Bills and at the line of discussion we have heard relating to the involvement, particularly of Telecom, in satellite communications. As I said before, I was not aware that there was such widespread interest in a matter of this sort. Perhaps one could be forgiven for thinking, as innocently as I might think, that there could be other matters which honourable members might like to discuss tonight. This filibuster-I have heard it described as a filibuster-is preventing consideration in the adjournment debate of a wider range of matters that might affect the State of New South Wales. Mr Leo McLeay —Get to the point. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member for Grayndler kept asking a rhetorical question, I suspect, as to why Opposition members hate Telecom. I do not hate Telecom. I regard it as an organisation which provides an essential service. I have found its many employees to be extraordinarily diligent in their work and competent in what they have to do. The one aspect that I very much regret is that that organisation, because it is a government monopoly, does not operate in a competitive environment. The fact is that honourable members on the Government benches are all too often critical of monopolists in the private sector. They regard monopoly as being wrong. Yet when there is a monopoly in the public sector, that suddenly becomes all right and it can be characterised as being good. The fact is that we are dealing with a public monopoly and very often there are some aspects of its service, notwithstanding the diligence of some, which are found to be wanting. I recall recently some very considerable discussion about the nature of the accounts being received by some people in the community. I think that all honourable members have this experience from time to time. Constituents regard some bills as excessive and there appears to be no apparent reason for the amounts that they are required to pay. Mr Cunningham —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The speaker is not referring to the Bill. This Bill does not deal with the accounts of Telecom or-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. I suggest to the House that some of the other speakers had some indulgence from the Chair, and the Chair extends the same indulgence. Mr RUDDOCK —The purpose of discussing this matter in this wide ranging way is to indicate to honourable members opposite, who have asked this question, why honourable members on this side of the House have reservations about extending the monopoly power of Telecom. I have no particular dislike of Telecom. I have made it clear that I regard it as an essential organisation, and I regard many of the employees that I have a lot to do with as being extraordinarily competent and very helpful. But I wanted to indicate to honourable members, particularly those opposite who have no doubt had the same experience as I have, that notwithstanding the bouquets that I give on the one hand, there are, on the other hand, brickbats to be offered. I suspect that the reason that so many brickbats are offered to Telecom by members of the public is the monopoly situation in which it works. It is not the fact, as honourable members opposite have wanted to suggest, that the Opposition is desirous of taking control of the satellite arrangements out of public hands. The Opposition would like, over time, to move to a situation in which the Government would have 51 per cent ownership and private interests would have 49 per cent. We consider that that would be a very desirable way of introducing private enterprise expertise in many of the areas in which the satellite will be operating. But at this stage we want only to confirm the arrangements that are in place now, where we have a private company totally owned by government handling the satellite arrangements. I do not see that as an objective that can be resisted. In fact, the honourable member for Grayndler, who spoke before me, was so confused about this matter that he spoke in support of the amendments proposed by the Opposition, as if he was almost shunted into the debate to make up the list of nine Government speakers carrying out the filibuster that I suggest is taking place in this debate to prevent important matters relating to the elections in the State of New South Wales being raised. One can only wonder why members of the Government would seek to extend a debate like this in that way. Important matters ought to be raised concerning the State of New South Wales and I cannot imagine why honourable members opposite would be afraid to have those matters discussed. Having made that point, I hope they will demonstrate to me and my colleagues that I am wrong in suggesting that. Mrs Darling —You are wrong. Mr RUDDOCK —I am wrong? We will see whether I get the chance to raise in the adjournment debate this evening some important matters relating to the community employment program. Dr Klugman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. If the honourable member for Dundas wants to get on to the adjournment, surely he should stop talking about those things now and let the people who are interested in the legislation continue the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. I suggest to the honourable member for Dundas that he has ranged about as far as the Chair is prepared to allow him to go. He had best return to the Bill. Mr RUDDOCK —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will return very much to the two Bills under discussion, the Satellite Communications Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill. Having regard to some of the debate that has taken place tonight, it is hard to relate the comments to anything other than an emotional defence in some cases of Telecom and a rather hysterical attack, in the case of the honourable member for Grayndler, on members of the Opposition whom he suggested in some way hated Telcom. He wanted to know why Opposition members hated Telecom. Mr Robert Brown —You do hate Telecom. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member points to me and says that I hate Telecom. I certainly do not hate Telecom, nor do my Opposition colleagues. I have indicated that the reason we have reservations about Telecom being given this 25 per cent interest in the satellite arrangements is that as an organisation Telecom has monopoly interests. Government supporters seem to be concerned that that organisation be able to get into what they describe as profitable areas of activity. The honourable member for Grayndler spoke about why he considers this area to be particularly profitable. I suspect that in part it may be speculative , as I have read something of the insurance arrangements. Mr Leo McLeay —Some people have never had anything to do with anything they haven't made a quid out of. Mr RUDDOCK —I am not sure about that either. I would need to take it a little more on notice in order to look at the particular investments of the gentleman to whom the honourable member may be referring. I suspect, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I go canvassing those I will incur your wrath as well. I just make the point in relation to Telecom and its interest in this project that I cannot see any reason why my opponents in this House should be promoting a view that Telecom should be intruded into this situation in which already the Government has a 100 per cent interest and the Opposition is seeking simply to maintain that position to these particular arrangements. That is the purpose of the amendments that we have proposed. I see no particular harm in the Government's proposal but it strikes me as absolutely extraordinary that we have seen former employees of Telecom-in one instance a former employee of Telecom speaking in this debate has declared an interest- desirous of seeing that organisation expand, but as a government monopoly. I see it as being a government monopoly which has all of the unfortunate, bad traits of private monopolies. I think for that reason that there is no good purpose in making Telecom a shareholder in this project. I think there are good reasons for maintaining the status quo and for considering allowing the private sector in the longer term to take up a partial interest-the Opposition is suggesting only 49 per cent-in order to bring management skills, skills earned in a competitive environment into this organisation so that it will be able to serve Australia in the future very much more effectively than if it is not able to have access to those skills. They are very good reasons for supporting the Opposition's approach. It does not take long to state them but nine Government speakers have spoken on this Bill to put one argument over and over again. Again, I simply ask: For what purpose? I suspect the purpose is to ensure that the discussion of matters relating to New South Wales will not be reached in the adjournment debate this evening. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.07) —Madam Deputy Speaker, just let me say how happy I am to see you in the chair. You discharge your duties from that chair very well. I wish to say how disappointed I was with the contribution from the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). I am not prepared to have a go at the gentleman because I think he is not a bad sort of a chap. However, I think he was displaying sheer ignorance when he said that we were filibustering. Mr Spender —If you are going to filibuster, do it in style. Dr Klugman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I realise that the honourable member for North Sydney, having been paid over $1,000 a day for filibustering in the past, is an expert on it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. Mr O'NEIL —If that girl on the other side will be quiet I will carry on. The House will have noticed that all the country members on this side of the House have made some contribution to or have remained in the House to participate in and listen to the debate on the Satellite Communications Bill. I think it was sheer ignorance on the part of the honourable member for Dundas to state that he did not realise there was so much widespread interest in this Bill. Mr Leo McLeay —We are interested in everything. Mr O'NEIL —Exactly. As the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will admit when he winds up this debate, many country members are particularly concerned about the fact that there are no television or radio services in their areas, as some of the country members who have come into the chamber would verify. This applies particularly on the west coast of South Australia in my huge electorate of Grey. I point out that prior to the 1977 election one of the senior members of the Liberal Party, in an effort to knock off the sitting member, the late Laurie George Wallis, promised the people on the west coast of South Australia that they would have television services within 12 months. The people in that area are still waiting for television. Mr Hollis —You will give them television. Mr O'NEIL —As my colleague the honourable member for Macarthur says, I am certainly attempting to get television in that area. Mr Robert Brown —You have worked hard for it. Mr O'NEIL —I certainly have. I am pleased to note that the Minister for Communications has advised me that he is likely to go to my area of Wudinna in the not too distant future to discuss with the residents in that area the lack of TV services. I must take exception to the fact that the honourable member for Dundas had a go at Telecom Australia. I wish to say that in my negotiations with Telecom, which have been over a long period, I have had terrific co-operation from the Telecom officers in my area. People such as Michael Collinson, Vic Payne, Des Bilske and Brendan Ayliffe have been superb in their discussions with me. In particular they have been of great assistance to me in overcoming some of the problems involved in countrywide calling. As far as I am concerned, Telecom has served a very worthwhile role in our country. I am pleased at the likelihood of 25 per cent ownership of the Aussat satellite system taking place. I am sure that Telecom will serve a very worthwhile role. I am sure that if the former members of Telecom who are in this House are working along those lines it will be a success. I now refer to some of the things that the Telecom and Aussat satellite systems will do. The most optimistic view holds that satellite communications will annihilate the tyranny of distance and bring all Australians closer together. I think that is wonderful. Some people who live in metropolitan areas take it for granted that they have a television service. However, all Australians, particularly those who live in country areas, love sport. Great sporting events such as the Melbourne Cup, the Davis Cup and so on, which metropolitan viewers are able to see, are not available to people in the country. I will be glad when the satellite systems comes into being so that all Australians will be able to watch national sporting events of which we are proud. It is a shame that many people around Wudinna, Coober Pedy, Leigh Creek, Andamooka, Streaky Bay, Ceduna, Elliston, Iron Knob, Iron Baron and many other areas in my large electorate cannot see these national sporting events take place. Fortunately, with the launching of the satellite all these services will be available. They will be available to all Australians. Let us face it, we are one nation and all of us should be able to watch these events. In an era when the cost and efficiency of communication is no longer linked to distance, the inhabitants of Arkroola, Bamaga and Nhulunbuy will have access to the same sources of entertainment and information as the citizens of Melbourne. That is a tremendous step. Pastoralists in the Kimberlys and Aboriginal communities throughout my huge electorate will have television available to them . Mr Leo McLeay —You will buy them a set. Mr O'NEIL —I will certainly make a donation towards some of them, as my friend the honourable member for Grayndler suggested. They will be able to enjoy the same reliable 24-hour a day communication that their compatriots in the capital cities have come to take for granted. There is no question that satellites can make all this possible, provided one overlooks the cost factor. It is true that with satellite links a call from Melbourne to Darwin will cost the same as one from Melbourne to Geelong. What is often forgotten is that a call from Melbourne to Geelong will cost the same as a call from Melbourne to Darwin. Above all the cost of terminal hardware, especially the two-way communication, will restrict the availability of satellite services in precisely those remote areas where there are the fewest opportunities for sharing this equipment. In many of the most isolated parts of Australia, particularly in my electorate of Grey, the effects of distance are compounded by poverty and comunication links that cost $20,000. The most basic means of direct two-way access did little to cure poverty. Mr Ruddock —Would you like a quorum to help you collect your thoughts? Mr O'NEIL —I must admit that the honourable member for Dundas who made his ignorant statement earlier in the piece that I was filibustering threw me. Mr Fisher —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Grey is making a farce of this place. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. Mr Holding —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The statement that has been made that an honourable member who is making a speech and quoting from a report is reducing the processes of the House to a farce I find grossly offensive. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. (Quorum formed) Mr Holding —Madam Deputy Speaker, prior to the calling of the quorum I pointed out that the terms that were used by the honourable member on a false point of order were not only specious but also offensive. To say that an honourable member who is making a speech and who momentarily loses his place when he is quoting from a document is reducing the House to a farce is a gross reflection on the honourable member. I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr Spender —Madam Deputy Speaker, let us first understand very clearly-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member speaking to the point of order? Mr Spender —Yes. It has been said that the honourable member should be required to withdraw. We all know that this is a filibuster and you, Madam Deputy Speaker , know that as well. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. The honourable member finds the comment offensive. Mr Fisher —I do not consider the statement 'making a farce of this House' as being unparliamentary and I will not withdraw. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The comments made by the honourable member for Mallee were not unparliamentary and as he does not choose to withdraw them the Chair cannot enforce their withdrawal. I warn the honourable member for Moreton. I call the honourable member for Grey. Mr Donald Cameron —What was going on in the Senate today- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will cease interjecting. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Deputy Speaker- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Moreton. I call the honourable member for Grey. Mr O'NEIL —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am terribly offended by the remarks made by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) but I conclude by pointing out that Opposition members do not understand the situation in my electorate. I will quote from Ian Burfitt, the Town Clerk of Le Hunt, who is constantly writing to the Minister for Communications and me pointing out the lack of television services. The Opposition does not care about the country people. We are the friends of the country people. I conclude my remarks by saying that I will do all I can to get television for my electorate. Mr Lloyd —Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Grey just said that the Opposition- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Murray will wait until I call him. I call the honourable member for Murray. Mr Lloyd —The honourable member has just said that the Opposition does not care about the television problems in his area. I have already been there- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Grey. Mr O'NEIL —I will conclude my remarks and point out that I hope all the listeners out there in Australia realise that those on the other side do not care about the people in the country who lack television services and radio services, unlike those on this side of the House who do care. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Ruddock-Madam Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.23 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 233 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general expenditure or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 222 by the Minister for Housing and Construction, Hansard page 113, 23 August 1983 and to House of Representatives Question No. 224 by the Minister for Administrative Services, Hansard page 114, 23 August 1983. Question No. 735 Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 November 1983: In view of recent legislative changes to sales tax exemptions for teletext equipment for handicapped people, what sales tax applies on decoding equipment that is (a) a separate decoding device; (b) a combined television/teletext decoding appliance; and (c) a separate decoding device purchased for attachment to a television set. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Item 123A in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act exempts from sales tax interactive and broadcast videotex systems, broadcast decoding devices and similar decoding devices whether or not they are of a kind used in or in connection with television receivers where the system or device is for use and not for sale by a person whose hearing is certified by the Director-General of Health to be impaired to such an extent that the person is, or is to be taken to be, profoundly deaf. Provided the requirements of item 123A are fulfilled it is immaterial into which of the categories mentioned by the honourable member that the decoding equipment falls- there will be no sales tax payable on the decoding equipment. Question No. 854 Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 (a) (i) The Department of Science and Technology participates in the following interdepartmental committees: Interdepartmental Committee on Law of the Sea convention Interdepartmental Committee on OECD Chemicals program Interdepartmental Telecommunications Advisory Committee Interdepartmental Committee on Antarctica Interdepartmental Committee on Commonwealth Shipping and Manning arrangements and the future of 'Cape' Class vessels Interdepartmental Committee for Advisory Departments on Preference Matters. 1 (b) (i) Instrumentalities under my control participate in the following interdepartmental committee: Interdepartmental Committee on Commonwealth Shipping and Manning arrangements and the future of 'Cape' Class vessels. (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Australian Institute of Marine Science). The subject matter of these committees' inquiries will be set out in the replies to Mr Leo McLeay's questions of those Ministers whose Departments chair them. 1 (a) (ii) The Department of Science and Technology chairs the following interdepartmental committee: Interdepartmental committee to monitor re-entry of satellite debris. (2) The subject matter of the interdepartmental committee to monitor re-entry of satellite debris is to disseminate information relevant to satellite orbit and condition to appropriate Commonwealth and State authorities and to the general public, and to ensure the development of contingency plans for recovery of debris and disposal of contaminated matter, should a satellite impact on Australia. Question No. 975 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) Of those people awarded fellowships or grants by the Literature Board of the Australia Council for 1984, (a) who had received Literature Board fellowships or grants in the preceding 5 years and (b) what were the years and amounts involved. (2) With respect to those people whose names have been sought in part (1), what books, short stories or poetry published by them over the last 5 years have acknowledged Literature Board fellowships or grants as being a contributing factor to those publications. (3) Are any limitations, in the form of employment or income, placed upon the recipients of Literature Board fellowships and grants; if so, what are the limitations. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australia Council has advised that all writers awarded Literature Board grants in the calendar year 1983, and Literature Board grants made to those writers during the past five calendar years fall into the following categories: SPG-Special Purpose Grant GWG-General Writing Grant F-Fellowship F12-Fellowship 12 months F24-Fellowship 24 months SF-Senior Fellowship SF6-Senior Fellowship 6 months SF12-Senior Fellowship 12 months SF24-Senior Fellowship 24 months SF36-Senior Fellowship 36 months NWF-New Writers Fellowship YWF-Young Writers Fellowship NPWG-National Parks Writers Grant Special Purpose Grants 1983 (1) (a) and (b)- Joseph Andersen (NSW)-$2,000 Hugh Anderson (Vic)-$3,000 Allan Baillie (NSW)-$3,000 Paul Bryden (NSW)-$3,000 Donald Charlwood (Vic)-$3,000 Hugh Clarke (ACT)-$1,500 G. Cresciani (NSW)-$3,000; 1979-$9,000 Alma De Groen (NSW)-$3,000; 1981-SF12 $17,244 Michael Denholm (Tas)-$1,177 1978-$400 Christina Faulk (ACT)-$2,000 Helen Granger (Vic) -$2,225 Frances Pearce (Vic) Mary Kalantzis (NSW)-$3,000 David Kerr (Vic)-$1,100 Gary Kinnane (Vic)-$2,500 Paul Kraus (NSW)-$2,000 C. Mattingley (SA)-$1,632 + NPWG $652; 1982-F6 $9,375 J. Meredith (NSW)-$3,000 1982-GWG $6,500; 1979-GWG $3,000 James Miller (NSW)-$3,000 D. Modjeska (NSW)-$1,280 Ian Moffitt (NSW)-$3,000 + F12 $20,000; 1981-SF12 $17,244 1980-GWG $5,000; 1978 -$3,000 + SF12 $11,000 Harold Morris (Vic)-$3,000 Brenda Niall (Vic)-$1,255 Michael Noonan (Qld)-$1,526 1980-SF12 $15,000; 1979-$2,000 Clement Semmler (NSW)-$1,410 1981-$1,000; 1978-$1,000 Jean Stone (NSW)-$1,000 Yuri Tkacz (Vic)-$3,000 Brian Turner (NSW)-$2,100 Russel Ward (NSW)-$3,000 Richard White (NSW)-$3,000 Kathleen White (Vic)-$3,000 + GWG $6,500 Writers Fellowships 1983 Glenda Adams (USA)-F12 $20,000; 1979-SF24 $12,500pa; 1978-SF12 $11,000 David Allen (NSW)-F12 $20,000 John Baxter (NSW)-F12 $20,000 Ron Blair (NSW)-F12 $20,000; 1978-SF24 $11,000pa Damien Broderick (Vic)-F12 $20,000; 1979-SF12 $10,000 Gary Catalano (Vic)-F12 $20,000; 1978-GWG $3,000 Barry Dickins (Vic)-F12 $20,000; 1979-SF12 $10,000; GWG $3,000 Hugh Edwards (WA)-F12 $20,000 Bob Ellis (NSW)-F12 $20,000 Mary Gage (WA)-F12 $20,000 Alan Gould (ACT)-F12 $20,000; 1981-GWG $5,000 Robert Gray (NSW)-F12 $20,000; 1982-F12 $18,750; 1980-SF12 $15,000 Dorothy Hewett (NSW)-F12 $20,000; 1981-SF12 $17,244; 1979-SF12 $10,000 Christopher Koch (NSW)-F12 $20,000; 1982-F12 $18,750; 1979-SF24 $12,500; 1978- SF12 $11,000 Nigel Krauth (NSW)-F12 $20,000; 1980-NWF $10,000 Morris Lurie (Vic)-F12 $20,000 Craig McGregor (NSW)-F12 $20,000 James McQueen (Tas)-F12 $20,000; 1982-F12 $18,750; 1979-SF24 $10,000pa Les Murray (NSW)-F12 $20,000; 1982-F12 $18,750; 1981-SF12 $17,244; 1979-$10,000 Peter Porter (UK)-F12 $20,000; 1979-SF12 $12,500 Stephen Sewell (NSW)-F12 $20,000; 1979-NWF $6,500 John Tranter (NSW)-F12 $20,000; 1981-SF12 $17,244; 1978-SF24 $11,000pa Dimitris Tsaloumas (Vic)-F12 $20,000; 1981-GWG $1,000 Archie Weller (WA)-F12 $20,000 Timothy Winton (WA)-F12 $20,000 B. Wongar (Vic)-F12 $20,000 Elizabeth Jolley (WA)-F24 $20,000pa Eric Rolls (NSW)-F24 $20,000pa Robert Adamson (NSW)-F6 $10,000; 1981-SF12 $17,244; 1979-SF12 $10,000 Mark O'Connor (Vic)-F6 $10,000; 1982-F6 $9,375 General Writing Grants 1983 Thea Astley (Qld)-$6,500 Inez Baranay (NSW)-$6,500 Diane Bates (NSW)-$6,500; 1982-$6,500 Andrew Batrouney (Vic)-$3,000 Jean Bedford (NSW)-$6,500; 1980-SF12 $15,000 + GWG $3,000 Pino Bosi (NSW)-$6,500 Patrick Burgess (NSW)-$6,500 Larry Buttrose (NSW)-$2,000 Gabrielle Carey (SA)-$6,500 Brian Castro (NSW)-$6,500 Jennifer Claire (NSW)-$1,000 Robyn Davidson (NSW)-$6,500 Geoffrey Dean (Tas)-$6,500; 1978-SF12 $11,000 Gary Disher (SA)-$6,500; 1981-SPG $500 + GWG $5,000 Barry Dowling (Vic)-$6,500 Sara Dowse (ACT)-$6,500 Helen Elliott (Vic)-$6,500 John Emery (SA)-$6,500; 1980-$5,000 Lorna Ferguson (Qld)-$3,000 Angela Fewster (SA)-$6,500 David Foster (NSW)-$6,500; 1981-SF24 $17,244; 1978-SF36 $11,000 Simon French (NSW)-$6,000 Hall Greenland (NSW)-$500 Catherine Grenville (NSW)-$6,500 Michael Gurr (Vic)-$5,950; 1982-$4,980 Barbara Hanrahan (SA)-$6,500; 1982-F12 $18,750; 1980-SPG $500 + F12 $15,000 Rae Desmond Jones (NSW)-$6,500 Andrew Lansdown (WA)-$6,500 Uyen Leowald (NSW)-$6,500 John Lonie (Vic.)-$3,500 Angelo Loukakis (NSW)-$6,500; 1978-YWF $6,000 Wendy Lowenstein (Vic.)-$6,500; 1979-$6,000 Anne McDonald (Vic.)-$6,500 Ross McMullin (Vic.)-$6,500 Susan Malouf (NSW)-$3,250; 1982-$3,250 Anthony Maniaty (NSW)-$6,500; 1982-SPG $3,000; 1981-$500 Sergio Martin (NSW)-$4,500 Olga Masters (NSW)-$6,500; 1982-$6,500 Ian Nash (Vic.)-$800 Avital Nathani (Vic.)-$6,500 Bronwen Nicholls (Vic.)-$6,500; 1978-F12 $11,000 Warren Osmond (NSW)-$6,500 Jenny Pausacker (Vic.)-$4,000; 1982-$6,500 Sheryn Pitman (SA)-$3,000 Marie Pond (Vic.)-$3,250 Nino Randazzo (Vic.)-$6,500 Andrew Sant (Tas.)-$6,500; 1982-F5 $9,375; 1981-$4,000; 1980-$1,000 D. Saravanamuttu (NSW)-$4,000 Bruce Shaw (SA)-$6,500; 1982-SPG $3,000 Anthony Strachan (NSW)-$3,000; 1982-SPG $1,980 Don Townshend (NSW)-$6,500 Patricia Veitch (Vic.)-$3,250 R. Wallace-Crabbe (NSW)-$6,500; 1981-F12 $15,000 Frank Willmott (Vic.)-$6,500 Gerard Windsor (NSW)-$6,500 E. Wynhausen (USA/NSW)-$6,500 Combined general writing special purpose grant applications 1983 Paul Carter (Vic.)-SPG $1,823 + GWG $4,000 Vivienne Ellis (A.C.T.)-SPG $3,000; 1981;-GWG $5,000; 1978-SPG $1,332 Klaus Hueneke (A.C.T.)-SPG $3,000 Jacqueline Kent (NSW)-SPG $3,000 + GWG $6,500; 1980-SPG $3,000 Ward McNally (SA)-SPG $2,002; 1982-SPG $1,916; 1979-SPG $1,000 1978-GWG $3,000 Shirley Sexton (SA)-SPG $570 Joy Thwaite (NSW)-SPG $3,000 + GWG $6,500; 1982-SPG $3,000 Rozamunda Waring (NSW)-SPG $1,000 + GWG $6,500 (2) The Literature Board is not able to provide a list of all books, short stories or poetry that have been published in the past five years as a result of grants by the Board and that have acknowledged Literature Board support. However, the Board has the expectation that all grant recipients will acknowledge Board support in publications resulting from grants. (3) The limitation placed upon recipients of Literature Board fellowships is stated in the Board's letter of acceptance of grant viz:- 'I undertake not to hold other full-time employment during the period of my Fellowship and to devote the greater part of my working time throughout that period to my writing projects. I understand that I may devote a small part of my working time to other paid duties. (For example, the equivalent of about one day per week may be spent on book reviewing, lecturing, brief assignments in journalism or other non-literary work.)' The recipient of a special purpose grant or a general writing grant is not expected to give up full-time employment or study. Conditions of grant are outlined in the Literature Board booklet-'Programs of Assistance 1983-84'.