Tuesday, 27 March 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on 13 March of Mr Francis Edward Doyle, a member of this House for the division of Lilley from 1972 to 1974. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Doyle I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Mr SPEAKER —I thank the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that- (a) the State of New South Wales suffers from significant political gerrymandering of electoral boundaries; (b) votes cast in ALP held seats have greater value than those in seats held by other parties, and (c) the Wran Government was re-elected by 45.4% of the total vote which gave the Premier 58% of NSW seats; and (2) warns the Australian people that a similar gerrymander could be in the process of being created by the federal Government. Mr Simmons having given notice of a motion, it was later ruled out of order. Notice of Motion Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice of my intention to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1983. I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Mackellar presenting forthwith the Health Legislation Amendment Bill of which he has given notice for the next sitting and moving that the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before calling the honourable member for Mackellar, I point out that as a result of a ruling I gave last year I have had occasion to consider the question of motions for suspension of Standing Orders. It might be helpful if I were to inform the House of the position I intend to adopt in relation to motions seeking to suspend Standing Orders which are proposed without prior warning having been given to the House. Standing order 399 provides: In cases of necessity, any standing or sessional order or orders of the House may be suspended, on motion, duly moved and seconded, without notice: Provided that such motion is carried by an absolute majority of Members having full voting rights. It should not be inferred from the standing order that a motion to suspend Standing Orders can be moved at any time, because it is a fundamental rule of parliamentary practice that any motion before the House must be disposed of, or debate on the motion adjourned, before another substantive motion can be moved. I refer to a substantive motion because honourable members will be aware that subsidiary motions which are largely procedural in character are often moved while a substantive motion is before the House; for example, a closure motion, a motion to adjourn the debate or the moving of an amendment. If a motion to suspend Standing Orders moved pursuant to standing order 399 is relevant to a matter already before the House, it may be accepted by the Chair. However, if it is not relevant to a matter before the House it will be accepted only if it is moved between items of business. I take this opportunity to inform the House of that because this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I call the honourable member for Mackellar to proceed with his motion. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(2.07) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Mackellar presenting forthwith the Health Legislation Amendment Bill of which he has given notice for the next sitting and moving that the Bill be now read a second time. Today all doctors in New South Wales public hospitals have stopped work except for emergency procedures. At this very moment in New South Wales radiologists in the public hospitals are continuing an existing ban on all but urgent cases. Doctors in Sutherland Hospital decided to continue today's action beyond today. Canberra doctors have been on strike for two weeks. Doctors in Victorian public hospitals from today are banning paper work, refusing unpaid overtime and refusing less than schedule fee services. Doctors have indicated that because of the actions of this Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and this Government they intend to escalate this action this week and in succeeding weeks. We want the suspension of Standing Orders to treat this matter as one of grave emergency because the public hospital system in Australia is in a state of grave crisis because of the actions of this Minister and the support of this Government for his stand. In the hospitals today we have a totally unnecessary crisis. The Minister for Health and the Government have provoked this crisis, and it is one which they are failing to resolve. Today the Minister brought forward what he said were some propitiatory signs, some concessions to the medical profession, because he had failed to get its agreement to introduce his Medicare system before it began. He has introduced a minor concession only, a concession which he refused to acknowledge or accept when we put it forward in September last year. Therefore, the Opposition submits that the Government is unable to resolve the crisis in our hospitals. We regard it as essential that the Parliament resolve this crisis . We regard the private member's Bill, which I will speak to once the House agrees to the suspension of Standing Orders, as an essential component of the resolution of this grave crisis. It is not enough for the Government to come forward with minor concessions which it knows to be unacceptable to the medical profession whilst patients in public hospitals, waiting for elective procedures, desperately concerned about their health, have to wait while this Government and this Minister come to the necessary conclusion as to the steps they have to take in order to resolve this situation. What have they been doing? Instead of attempting to resolve the situation the Government has allowed its Minister for Health day by day to provoke the doctors. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has compared the doctors to the Builders Labourers Federation. Indeed, the Minister for Health has said that this is being unkind to the Builders Labourers Federation. This is the first strike the doctors have felt obliged to call in the whole history of the Australian medical profession. In the history of Australia we have seen various health changes. Each one of these has been preceded by discussions between the then Minister for Health, from whichever party is in government, Labor or Liberal. It has been possible to achieve consensus, even for socialist programs, with this profession. By contrast, this Minister not only has failed to get the profession's agreement to bring in these programs but also has provoked it to the point where it is taking action against the public interest. The Opposition took all the necessary steps earlier during the debate to warn the Minister for Health that it would come to this pass if he proceeded with his action. He had good warning; he had good warning from the profession. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should relate his remarks to the reasons for the suspension of Standing Orders. He is conducting a more general debate. Mr CARLTON —Mr Speaker, I have carefully refrained from arguing the subject matter of my private member's Bill. I have been addressing my remarks to the crisis which exists in the public hospitals which has been provoked by this Minister who could have avoided it had he accepted advice from the medical profession, from the Opposition, from the Australian Democrats and from everybody in the community who wants a sensible resolution of this crisis. The Minister has done the very reverse; he has not made the necessary concessions; he has not entered into reasonable discussions. He has been misleading in his intentions on his original proposals. Indeed he has compared the doctors, who have never been on strike before in Australia's history, with the Builders Labourers Federation. The Prime Minister has accused the doctors of behaving like the Builders Labourers Federation. The Prime Minister has provoked the doctors and instead of taking the conciliatory role, which he used to like taking when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, instead of taking a consensus position, which is the stated position of his Government, and instead of intervening at an appropriate moment when his Minister was making a total ass of himself and bringing the Australian hospital system to a standstill, he has compared the doctors with the Builders Labourers Federation. Two days later the Minister on television, in response to a question on whether he agreed with the Prime Minister, said that he thought that was being unkind to the Builders Labourers Federation. I do not know whether this Government understands it but the success of its whole Medicare program depends on the providers of services and the doctors being free and able to co-operate with the Government in this process. That is the heart of the suspension of Standing Orders which I have moved today and what is behind the private member's Bill which I intend introducing into the House. Because of this provocation begun by the Minister and supported by the Prime Minister and the Government we have a situation in which the doctors have no confidence in this Minister, no confidence to negotiate satisfactorily, no confidence in his intentions and no confidence in his statements about what he is likely to do in the future. As a result of the way this Minister has handled this issue the doctors are fearful that he is trying to get around the constitutional provisions of section 51 of the Constitution which were put there in 1946. Those provisions were put into the Constitution at a time when doctors were fearful that there would be nationalisation of health in this country. The history behind that change is important. In this Parliament the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Menzies, suggested to the Government and to Dr Evatt that there should be inserted into the changes that the Labor Government was going to make to the Constitution in 1946 a provision which prevented civil conscription of doctors. That was accepted by Dr Evatt; it was put into the constitutional changes and was accepted by the Australian people. Over the last six months the confidence that has been built up in the medical profession as to the good intentions of successive Federal governments has been eroded and almost destroyed by the actions of this Minister and this Government. That is at the heart of the Opposition's concern today. It is desperately concerned that the Parliament intervene by considering a private member's Bill which would eliminate the offending clauses of section 17 of the Health Insurance Act until such time as the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals, which has already been established by the Minister, could report, and so that the Minister could go back with a clean slate to negotiate with the doctors. It would then be possible for the Minister to do what he ought to have done before he introduced Medicare, that is, to have a sensible discussion with the doctors about his real intentions. His Medicare program could then continue as he believes it ought to. There is no reason why the Government should have got into this position. There is every reason why this Parliament has to intervene. We in the Opposition insist that the Parliament debate the matter and that it take it out of the hands of this Minister. It ought to have been taken out of his hands by the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister chose to pour petrol on the flames. The Prime Minister bears with the Minister for Health the responsibility for the crisis in our public hospital system. He bears joint responsibility. The Government as a whole bears this responsibility. The House must now take the responsibility to resolve this issue once and for all. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.17) —Mr Speaker, I second the motion. On 1 February every taxpayer in Australia was called upon to pay a one per cent levy on his tax in order to meet the cost of Medicare. On 27 March we still have no Medicare in place. This House needs to know when the Government is going to be in a position to deliver to the taxpayers of Australia and to the patients of Australia a scheme which they will understand and which will ensure that there is no intervention in the doctor- patient relationship. Unless the Standing Orders are suspended there is no way by which, under any proposal now before the Parliament, there will be a restoration in the minds of the patients of Australia of confidence in this Government regarding the high taxes they are specifically being charged for a scheme that is already in ill-repute. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) apparently suggested on the air today that there are going to be some amendments to the scheme. Whatever those amendments are the Parliament is not going to be told. No statement will be made by the Minister for Health. This is the first occasion that this Parliament has had an opportunity to consider what the effect is going to be on the doctor-patient relationship and on the availability of health services to the Australian patient. This is the first occasion that the Minister can tell us how he is going to put back in place a relationship which for so long has provided a very high standard of medical care and attention to the people of Australia. Unless this House suspends Standing Orders to allow my colleague to present his Bill there is no way that every specialist will not feel that the intervention which this academic has provided is going to intrude in such a way that it will interrupt completely the availability of health services right across the spectrum. There is no doubt, from the meeting of the Doctors Reform Society at which the Minister for Health indicated that the diagnostic specialists are only first on the rank, that there is reason for the doctors of Australia to be concerned. While for the first time in the history of medical practice in Australia every one of them is now on strike, they are on strike because they validly have cause because of the intervention by government between the doctor and the patient. There is no easier way for this House to resolve the whole matter than for it to consider my colleague's motion and his amending Bill which will ensure that the status of Medicare is put back so that the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals can be completed, so that we are in a position to know what might be the cost of diagnostic services and so that we can see whether in a process of proper negotiation we can have a regime which will ensure that neither the medicos nor the patients and the taxpayers are disadvantaged. There is no doubt that unless the Standing Orders are suspended all of the country patients around Australia who do not have the advantage of any consulting medicos will pay their one per cent levy for no Medicare benefits at all. Unless there is a suspension of Standing Orders to consider my colleague's Bill, there is no capability for the taxpayers of Australia to receive value for those dollars that they contribute. They are all in a position where they will know that the doctor-patient relationship which they have cherished-we are talking about privately insured patients-has been prejudiced by this scheme which is inadequate and is costing every taxpayer dearly even where the services are not now available. Unless this House is now in a position to consider the Bill which my colleague will introduce and which will reinstate the provisions of the Act before the Medicare amendment was introduced, there will be no certainty that there can be any resolution of the conflict between doctors and government. The blame is on the Government. It is for the Government to consider this motion and put the situation back to where it was so that the doctors can consult with the Minister and the Minister will be forced to consult with them. Unless there is that reinstatement, there is no opportunity for fair dealings. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(2.22) —The Government does not agree with the motion to suspend Standing Orders. We do not believe the Opposition has any credibility on the question of health care for the Australian people. It left this country in an absolute shambles as far as health insurance was concerned. It tried eight different schemes in seven years and left hundreds of thousands of people uninsured in March 1983. As far as my colleague the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is concerned, let me say on behalf of all members on this side of the House and the vast majority of the Australian people that he has done an outstanding job. It is better to be an academic than a kleptomaniac. If the Opposition were serious about some of these issues-it has put forward a proposition today that the matter should be debated as a matter of public importance, which you, Mr Speaker, have accepted and will recommend to the House later, and which the Government accepts as a matter for debate-there would have been a Question Time at which it could have questioned the Minister about his Press briefings at 12 o'clock. Opposition members interjecting- Mr YOUNG —We cannot help it if members of the Opposition have no questions to ask. We gave them 19 days since the last sitting of the Parliament. If they cannot dream up some questions, they should give me a ring and I will give them some suggestions, as long as they promise me that no one is tapping the telephone. There is absolutely no credibility as far as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) who moved for the suspension of Standing Orders is concerned. The motion is merely a gimmick to try to attract some attention in order, I may say, disgracefully to add some weight to the action being taken by the doctors in the dispute. Instead of moving for the suspension of Standing Orders the honourable member should be seeking to see that the doctors fit in with the policies of this Government which have been brought down in the interests of the majority of people in this country. Not only that, but also they were endorsed, and a mandate for what we are doing was given on 5 March 1983. Over the last year there have been hours of debate on this subject in the House. It has probably received more debate than any other issue. It is not good enough for the Opposition to say that, because the doctors are going on strike, the Government must be wrong. If the issues are examined, it could well be that the doctors are wrong. Perhaps the Opposition should look at the matter from that angle, rather than fuelling the doctors to take more and more militant action. If anything happens to patients, to which the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was referring, it will be the responsibility not of this Government but of the doctors, for taking the action that they have. As a government we do not intend to entertain these gimmicks being moved in the form of motions and taking up the time of honourable members who want to be using this 45-minute period for Question Time. We intend to see that every time that motions such as this are moved in order to disrupt the business of the Government-- Mr Howard —That is a threat, is it? Mr YOUNG —It is not a threat at all. I just say this to Little John: Having observed him from the other side of the chamber for seven years, all that I am doing is what I learnt from him and his colleagues, and that is that when one is in government and one sets out a government program one sees that it is carried out. One does not intend to let the Opposition interfere more than is possible with that program, irrespective of the vast amount of talent on the Opposition benches. We do not intend to take up any more of the time of the House with this gimmick. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Carlton's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. C. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L. (Teller)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. Hawker, D. P. M. Cunningham, B. T. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates Croydon Public School within the electorate of Lowe upon the centenary of its foundation which is being celebrated this week; and (2) notes the outstanding work for the centenary celebrations by a committee composed of teachers and members of the parents' and citizens' association. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses the strongest possible view that the siting of the proposed multi -million dollar National Maritime Museum should have been above and beyond party politics; and (2) utterly condemns the Prime Minister for his shameful action in giving the museum to the Wran Government just three days before the New South Wales State election and again unjustly discriminating against Tasmania, the preferred site of Hobart and the electors of Denison and Franklin. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the continued success of the Government's First Home Owners Scheme; (b) that for the week ending 23 March 1984, 390,787 enquiries relating to the scheme have been received throughout Australia, of which 65,119 were in Western Australia; (c) that $62.7m has been paid out in grants of which $8.4m has been paid out in Western Australia, and (d) that these signs of recovery are strongly evident in the Electoral Division of Stirling, and (2) reassures the community that the First Home Owners Scheme is intended to continue to provide this source of remarkable recovery in the housing industry. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice, that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) is of the opinion that the Government's new domestic tourist airfares discriminate against a vast number of rural and regional towns and cities in Australia; (2) notices that the General Manager of Ansett has said that the airline had nominated Cairns, Rockhampton, Mackay, Proserpine, Hayman and Hamilton Islands, Coolangatta, Mt Isa, Launceston, Wynyard, Devonport and Alice Springs as the ports which must be used for the 4 nights stopovers, and (3) calls on the Government to- (a) insist that the fare apply to any port on the Ansett or TAA network, and (b) end the discrimination against all the other rural and regional cities of Australia with air services. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes- (a) the widespread public concern in Australia about the escalation of the arms race and the threat of nuclear war; (b) with approval that this concern has been reflected at the local level, through cities, municipalities and shires across Australia being declared Nuclear Free Zones, including the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Fremantle, and (c) that the Government, since 5 March 1983, has acted strongly in response to this widespread community concern, by taking such initiatives as the appointment of an Australian Ambassador for Disarmament and supporting the creation of a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific, and (2) urges the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to continue constructive initiatives to promote world peace and disarmament. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) is disturbed at the lack of work being undertaken on the new Parliament House, and (2) calls on the Government to urge the builders labourers to return to the job of construction so that it may be completed by 1988. Mr GORMAN(Chifley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) endorses the actions of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health for their actions in dealing with the medical practitioners, and (2) condemns the greedy doctors and their actions in withdrawing their services from hospitals and leaving many thousands of Australians in unnecessary agony. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that 1 in 3 medical bills in Queensland are now being paid by bulk billing, and (2) congratulates the rank and file of the medical profession in that State on their co-operative and responsible approach to the introduction of Medicare. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Perth Building Society, one of the biggest building societies in Australia, has introduced a special loan policy for home purchasers financially embarrassed by delay in approvals of first home owners grants, and (2) condemns the Government for its failure to warn new home owners of the risk they take in taking the word of the Government that answers will be available in 2 weeks. 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 set up a Small Business Committee being co- ordinated by the Bureau of Industry Economics focusing on the prospects and performances of small business, and (2) calls on the Government to- (a) explain to the House why this Committee has been set up and the work it is doing, and (b) explain why the Government has not implemented its election promises to small business, particularly its tax promises to allow full retention allowance of profits for small companies and to extend the time for payment of sales tax from 21 days. Mr PEACOCK —Did the Minister for Health advise the meeting of the Doctors Reform Society last August that the July 1982 meeting of Health Ministers had decided to deal with diagnostic specialists in public hospitals first and then move on to other specialists in due course? How does he reconcile this decision with his stated intention to apply the provisions of section 17 only to diagnostic specialists? Dr BLEWETT —The issue of charging the scheduled fee in public hospitals in relation to all specialists was discussed at the Health Ministers Conference. When we came to examine the legislation for Medicare we specifically designed it in relation to the high cost diagnostic specialities. The reasons for so doing were argued through both within the Party and within this Parliament. Mr GEAR —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I ask: In view of recent statements about the 1984-85 Budget deficit, by how much does the Prime Minister believe it is appropriate to reduce the deficit next year? Mr HAWKE —The Government has not made any decision about the size of the deficit for 1984-85, but I remind the House that ever since we introduced our first Budget in August of last year I have been saying consistently inside this place and outside that we would reduce the demands of this Government on the financial market as private investment increased during the economic recovery. Of course, the question, and it is an important question, is: How far can we go to reduce our demands on the financial markets and so ease pressures on interest rates without withdrawing so much stimulus from the economy that recovery and the incentive for private investment are curtailed for lack of demand? Striking the right balance between those two considerations requires a careful assessment of the prospects for recovery of private investment and of the pressures in the financial market in the next financial year. The Government is working towards a situation where there can be a responsible reduction in the deficit for next year. I say now that there will be such a reduction. We believe that there are certain factors operating which are relevant to this. We believe that the enlarged corporate profits which are already emerging resulting from a combination of both strong economic recovery and growth and from wage moderation within the limits of the accord will greatly increase the capacity of the corporate sector to finance investment out of its own resources. But if private investment proceeds even more strongly, as we hope it will, there will come a situation where there will be demands by the corporate sector upon the market. I assure the Parliament and the Government too -- Mr McVeigh —As long as they listen to you. Mr HAWKE —They do. I assure the Parliament that the Government is determined to reduce its own borrowing to an extent which, in combination with the expected increase in the net savings of the household sector and in combination also with our expectation of reduced borrowing by other levels of government, should ensure that domestic pressures on the financial markets will be less next year than they have been this year. I say-it is very important that this should be said-that this Government will certainly not run the risk of aborting the economic recovery by a sudden arbitrary and large reduction in the deficit without-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I assume from the interjections that honourable members opposite would . Such an attitude would be logical with the Opposition's complete mismanagement of the economy over the previous seven years. We will not run that risk of taking away the stimulus that was involved in the Government operation without a careful assessment of its prospects of being replaced by a growth in other sources of demand. Mr Burr —Does that mean a capital gains tax? Mr HAWKE —That question is indicative of the level of economic incompetence on the other side of the House. A capital gains tax has nothing to do with it. I simply say that we believe that our policies-particularly the strong growth in wage moderation which has been associated with an adherence to the prices and incomes accord-have already established an excellent climate for investment and will continue to do so in the year ahead. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Minister for Health to the answer he gave the Leader of the Opposition in a previous question. He said that, in the Government's consideration of the earnings of diagnostic specialists and the consideration by this House in the legislation, he was referring only to diagnostic specialists. Why then did the legislation itself apply to all visiting doctors in public hospitals? Dr BLEWETT —I make no pretence that section 17 of the Health Legislation Amendment Act did not leave it open to cover all specialists in public hospitals . That is something which this Government has never disguised. However, in relation to specific guidelines drawn up and in the debate in this House we referred to action in relation to the high cost of diagnostic specialities. Let it be quite clear-honourable members only need read the terms of reference to the Penington Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals-that it was agreed upon by the Government and the Australian Medical Association that the whole issue of private practice rights in public hospitals was to be examined. This Government is not prepared, either at the behest of an elite group of trade unionists or because of noisy support given in this House for those attitudes, to abandon the basic principle of section 17. This is to ensure that in publicly funded, taxpayer funded, hospitals where the equipment and staff are paid for by taxpayers, this Government will guarantee that the interests of the taxpayers are preserved and that overcharging will not take place. Ms FATIN —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. Given his responsibility for ensuring adequate facilities and assistance for honourable members and honourable senators will he extend every assistance to the honourable member for Hume to ensure that his current experiment to determine the appropriate level of unemployment benefit is as realistic as possible? Further, as the average length of time young people in Canberra spend on unemployment benefits is 44 weeks and not just a few days in the glare of television lights, can the Minister inform the House whether it would be possible for the exercise of the honourable member for Hume to extend to a more realistic length of time? Mr YOUNG —Without checking with the Department of the Special Minister of State, I suspect it is true that if any honourable member wants to have special deductions taken from his salary to carry out such an exercise this could be encompassed by my Department, which looks after most of the salaries and facilities of members. I am sure that could be accommodated if the honourable member for Hume wished us to do that. It is relevant that the honourable member for Canning says that the average period for which a young person is unemployed is 44 weeks but for a person of Mr Lusher's age, experience and skills, it is a lot longer. Honourable members-Ha, ha! Mr YOUNG —I do not think that the House should be all that amused by this exercise. This Government inherited a registered unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent which is leaving a scar on this country and will continue to do so for decades to come. It is something to which all of us in this House, on both sides , ought to be paying some attention. This Government has been dedicated for a long period, in opposition and, through special programs, since we came to government, to getting people back to work. This will not all be achieved through employment programs. I do not want to turn this into a total economic debate, but a lot can be done in education, in the high schools and in tertiary colleges, to assist in overcoming the massive problem of unemployment that we have in this country. The futility of the exercise, if I may say so to my parliamentary colleague from Hume, is that one cannot judge the problems that are put up with by people who are unemployed by merely striking an amount of money and seeing whether one can live on it for a week. That is not what unemployemnt is all about. Unemployment breaks people morally, it breaks them physically, it breaks them intellectually, it breaks up families and it brings about massive poverty. I suggest to the honourable member for Hume, if he has some time to spare, that he visit places such as the Brotherhood of St Lawrence or the Smith Family to see what is being done to assist those families who belong to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed. It is not a question of whether one can live on $73 from this Monday till next Monday, knowing full well that next Monday one will move back into the real world. What the honourable member is undertaking is bringing disgrace on the House of Parliament. People outside are pouring scorn on parliamentarians because they think we are using this example as some judgment of how we understand unemployment. Mr Peacock —You were the spokesman in that area and you were involved. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —That is how much confidence they had in you. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Peacock —Don't come the phoney seriousness here. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I sometimes think the Leader of the Opposition wishes me to have to take action against him. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Hume could undertake a much more serious inquisition into the problems of unemployment rather than being used by a television crew to show up what his problems may be by living on a small amount of money for one week. I suggest to that television crew that there are literally hundreds of thousands of stories of poverty in this country that should be examined by the media and that are not being examined, apart from the exercise of following the honourable member on his push bike for a week in Canberra. I do not think the honourable member does himself or the Parliament justice in carrying out this exercise. A quick check of the records will show that over the last four years in this Parliament the honourable member for Hume has never spoken about or asked a question on unemployment. Therefore, his seriousness about this subject can be called into question. Honourable members may recall that on something like 11 occasions during that period the then Labor Opposition moved motions in this Parliament to have the Parliament look at the problems being caused in this country by unemployment. This subject deserves to be treated seriously by this Parliament and by those people who have the enormous privilege of serving in this Parliament. That includes the honourable member for Hume, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and every other honourable member in this House. I suggest to the honourable member for Hume that if he were seriously to reconsider his position he would withdraw from the exercise he has undertaken. Mr SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General dated 26 March 1984 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts and generally completed as at 31 December 1983. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the Report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts-March 1984, and (2) That the paper be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Act 1978 I present the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation annual report for 1982-83. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present the report on the forward estimates of Budget outlays for the period 1984-85 to 1986-87. The report was released and circulated to honourable members during the recent parliamentary break. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I hereby table the determination required in relation to Division 312 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84, together with an explanatory statement providing additional information on the expenditures involved. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present statements on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for November and December 1983 and January 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the Education Research and Development Committee annual report 1982- 83 which was tabled in the House on 7 March 1984. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 I present the Fishing Industry Research Committee annual report for 1982-83. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on automotive and industrial filters (anti- dumping). The report was released to honourable members during the recent parliamentary break. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the appointment of a Deputy Chairman to the Repatriation Commission. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Canberra Commercial Development Authority annual report for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Capital Territory Milk Authority annual report for 1982-83. 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 Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cadman,Mrs Child,Mrs Darling,Mr Fisher,Mr Groom,Mr Hawker,Mr Porter,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Rocher and Mr Willis. 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 precribe 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 Braithwaite,Mr Fife,Mr O'Keefe and Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully sheweth 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 Blanchard,Mr Brumby and Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that. 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mrs Child and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That because television and radio (a) affect our social and moral environment, (b) are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and (c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate (a) for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public, (b) for a 'Dual System of Regulation' enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control. (c) for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and (d) for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Hollis. 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 Mr Hayden and Mrs Kelly. 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 the Soviet Union continues to violate human rights in Latvia. This is clearly demonstrated by the recent case of Janis Rozkalns, a practising Baptist who, on January 6, 1983, had his house forcibly entered into by K.G.B. agents searching for various religious publications. The K.G.B. confiscated 40 Bibles. Mr Rozkalns was charged with 'anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda' and now faces a sentence of seven years deprivation of freedom plus five years internal exile. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled condemns the religious and human rights persecution within the Soviet Union. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton and Mr Steedman. 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-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock and Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully sheweth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principal opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programmes and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby. 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 Howard. To the Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: Whereas the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has sat in Launceston, Tasmania, and taken evidence on the problem of aircraft noise over that city, and Whereas that evidence has established that a prima facie case does exist on the matter of encroaching aircraft noise on the lives of people living under the existing takeoff flight paths; Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; Request the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to bring down an interim report on the matter of aircraft noise at Launceston, Tasmania as a matter of urgency, as: (a) The situation is becoming worse and, with the expected introduction of a Boeing 727 on the night freight services, the position will become intolerable for those living under the northerly takeoff flight path. (b) There will be more jet aircraft flights at night than experienced in the day. (c) That the present measures planned by the Department of Aviation to alleviate the noise are totally inadequate and fail to recognise the basic causes of the problem. (d) The increasing noise problem affects the well being of the patients in five major hospitals, the aged in five aged home complexes and children in fourteen major schools and colleges, all under the mandatory flight path as laid down by the Department of Aviation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: 1. that an airport in the north-west region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. note that such a proposal will result in the destruction of the historic village of Pittown, Longneck Wildlife Reserve, significant Aboriginal relics and the historic Scheyville Camp and will irreversibly alter the character of the five Macquarie towns. 3. consider the resulting intolerable pollution of the Hawkesbury River. 4. note that approximately 2000 properties will be resumed, displacing over 5000 residents. 5. consider the detrimental effects of noise, air and vehicular pollution on many thousands of residents in the surrounding districts of Hawkesbury, Baulkham Hills and Hornsby Shires and Blacktown and Penrith cities. 6. give immediate consideration to finding a more suitable alternative site. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1% of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other states. Without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and the State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80.00 per day in the other states. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled, should Use its influence with Government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $40 per day) against insured Queenslanders And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows- That the reference to God in the Oath of Allegiance be not deleted or removed. An alternative form of allegiance is presently available to those persons who may object to taking the form of oath containing the reference to God. That deletion of the reference to God in the Oath of Allegiance will deny to persons who desire to make such an oath in the presence of God, the opportunity of exercising that right. That Australia is recognized as a Christian Nation and as such, it is paramount that a continuing reference to God in the Oath of Allegiance be maintained so that our New Australian Citizens will be aware that Australia professes a Christian Way of Life. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ensure that the reference to God in the Oath of Allegiance as it is presently worded is not removed or deleted. by Mrs Darling. 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth our concern over the continuing delay in the provision of shopping facilities for the residents of the Tuggeranong Valley. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. building of the recently approved shopping complex on the Erindale site at Wanniassa, comprising 14,000 square metres of retail space and 4,000 square metres of other commercial space, proceed immediately; and 2. the Minister for Territories and Local Government censure the Canberra Commercial Development Authority for its blatant empire building at the expense of the Tuggeranong community and the National Capital Development Commission for recommending a retail development contrary to that discussed with the Tuggeranong community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia: That because there is much concern in the community over the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; That because there is much concern over the proposed Sex Discrimination Bill based upon, and intending to implement, the aforementioned UN Convention; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: 1. Immediately rescind the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 2. Completely reject and abandon the Sex Discrimination Bill currently before Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizen of Australia respectfully showeth: That the expense of paying the fare to and from place of employment be regarded as a tax deduction. It costs the petitioner $300 to $500 per year for fares. If we did not go to work-NO PAY-consequently-NO TAX-So I do not think this petition is unrealistic. Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that this petition will be heard and a formal reply forthcoming. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That existing medical supplies and services essential for the care and treatment of multiple-handicapped children and adults be retained at Victorian hospitals at no cost to the patient or their families. Our belief in this matter is shared by the majority of affected families who will find it extremely inconvenient to travel to other locations and an intolerable economic burden if present subsidies are removed. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will take such action as it may authorise to rectify this problem. by Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, as members of a school Parent Club object to legislation that calls for the payment of the Bank Debit Tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of Bank Debit Tax will be granted to School Parents' Clubs in Government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors, elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2% in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2%, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8%, Increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs, e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Katter. 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 pasttime; 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 and Mr Maher. 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 and Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that: Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Sandgate shows that they are dissatisfied that there is no Medicare Office in their suburb and that consequently, they are forced to more expense in travelling to Medicare offices elsewhere, in order to claim refunds to which they are entitled. Your petitioners therefore pray that a Medicare office for the prompt processing of claims be immediately established in the main shopping centre of the suburb of Sandgate. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Sandgate, Queensland, shows-there is a marked increase of air traffic over Sandgate, thereby creating a considerable noise nuisance, which disturbs an otherwise peaceful area. Your petitioners therefore pray that the government investigate. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (1) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. by Mr Groom. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's inept and provocative handling of its dispute with the doctors . I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.10) —There is mounting concern throughout Australia about the way in which the Hawke Government and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) have mishandled the implemention of Medicare. It is a concern that is fully justified, because after just eight weeks of Medicare the health care industry is in a serious mess. When it comes to the bottom line, the thing with which we are all most concerned is our own health and our own well-being and, more particularly, that of our families and our friends. Yet the confrontationist attitudes of this Government, and this Minister in particular, have brought health care to a state where doctors are withdrawing their labour. I stress that it is the actions of this Government which have brought Australia to a health care crisis. The current dispute with medical practitioners puts the lie to the Hawke Government's incessant talk about its conciliatory approach to industrial relations. This Government will go down in history as the one government which provoked a doctors' strike, the first in the history of this country. The current situation reflects an extraordinary level of ineptitude. It reflects, indeed, the obsessive pursuit of a progressive nationalisation of both a profession and an industry. I want to look closely at why the medical profession does not trust the Minister for Health, does not trust the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and does not trust the Australian Labor Party Government. Would any group, any association, meekly accept the fait accompli which the Minister for Health has thrust on to doctors? Does any Australian approve of the way in which this Minister is riding roughshod over the rights of doctors? Mr Hunt —Would any union? Mr PEACOCK —When the nature of the Minister's actions is seen for what it is, the answer clearly is no. That message is unquestionably getting through in every State of the Commonwealth of Australia. The level of correspondence which I and, I am certain, all honourable members on this side of the House have received, and no doubt those on the Government side have received is absolutely unprecedented. It is not just from doctors; it is from people inside and out of the health care industry who are outraged at the actions of the Minister. The public sees through the public relations smokescreen which the Government has laid down. After the millions that have been spent in trying to explain Medicare , and with the confusion that still abounds in the community, it is no wonder that I thought it fairly apt when I remarked somewhere that the most accurate advertisement that has been produced by this Government was that Medicare advertisement that ended up with the taxpayer holding the baby. Don't they know it now? The public sees through every element of this smokescreen that has been put down. But worse than that, it sees through the Minister's appeals to prejudice and his campaign of character vilification, and it is just not working . No matter how much the Government huffs and puffs about money and greed, people will not be fooled. They realise what is going on. They realise that there are fundamental principles at risk and they can see for themselves that the conditions that the Hawke Government imposes on doctors are totally unacceptable. The fact is that no Australian would accept the one-sided contracts which the current Minister for Health says that doctors must accept. As my honourable friend the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) interjected some moments ago, no trade union would accept the extraordinary provisions of section 17 of the Health Legislation Amendment Act. This is not a conclusion reached only by the Opposition. It is the view taken by leading authorities on industrial relations and industrial law. It would have been interesting for honourable members opposite, particularly the Prime Minister, to see Nationwide last night. We recall that it is one of his favourite programs. If he did not, let me explain very briefly what an expert on industrial law at the University of Melbourne, Mr Richard Tracey, had to say about Labor's dispute with doctors. On section 17 Mr Tracey had this to say: There is no way that a union in this country would accept that sort of dictation to terms and conditions of employment. He went on to support what doctors and the Opposition have been claiming for months when he said: But it certainly would allow them to totally regulate the employment of doctors in hospitals as to all aspects of their employment. Let me read again what this expert in industrial law said. Honourable members opposite challenge whether a trade union would be incited by section 17. Mr Tracey said: It certainly would allow them-- that is the Government- to totally regulate the employment of doctors in hospitals as to all aspects of their employment. Of course, that is a fundamental and extremely important point because it goes to the nub of the matter. If this were simply a dispute about money and about the levels of fees for diagnosticians or surgeons, there is no doubt that with good will matters could be solved. But that will not happen because that is not what the dispute is about. The Minister for Health has deliberately attempted to orchestrate the misconception that it is about money. The reality is that it is not just about money, and he knows it. As Mr Tracey said last night, it is much more than that. The fact is that this Government is deeply committed to the nationalisation of the whole health care industry, and nothing less. No one will be fooled by the talk about greed and money being the obstruction. It is the old fashioned, interesting motive. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) referred to an academic. As an aside I say that it is interesting to note that the two most disastrous members of the Hawke Ministry, of which there are a considerable number, are both academics-our lofty Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and our lofty Minister for Health. Behind it all is the scheme for the nationalisation of the health industry. One need go back only to the days of the old socialists, as this academic would know , to know that what is essential for the nationalisation of industry is the control and direction of labour and the control and direction of those within the given industry. That is what he is about-not the smokescreen as to money. That is why the Minister clings to the draconian powers which he wrote for himself in section 17 and the amendments which he is going along with now but which he would not go along with when we moved them in September of last year. It does not make any difference. There can be no secret about this Minister's intentions, nor about the Government's intentions. In fact, the Minister is on the record as to his strategy, and honourable members will have noted that this afternoon he did not deny his statement to the Doctors Reform Society when I asked him about it. Let me now read to the House why he could not deny it and what he actually said to the Doctors Reform Society. We have a copy of that speech which was delivered in August last year. The quotation is on page 15. For once, the Minister was brutally frank. Let me quote the paragraph leading to the essential part of this speech of the Minister for Health, the leading proponent of the socialisation of medicine. He said: However, one area of particular concern to the Government in the public hospital sphere is the right to private practice of sessional medical staff, particularly in the diagnostic services area. We believe, and I know you would concur- he was talking to the Doctors Reform Society- that the present system is far too open to kickbacks and to games with referral processes. He went on to say and this is the nub of it: It was agreed at the July Health Ministers Conference that attention to these problems should be initially directed to the area of diagnostic services, with the intention to move more broadly in due course. Mr Howard —So you strangle them one at a time. Mr PEACOCK —That is right. Let no one be in any doubt as to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said. Let no one be in any doubt as to what 'move more broadly' means. This Government is about the subjugation of the medical profession. That is what it is all about. The strategy is one of socialisation step by step, group by group; initially with the diagnostic services with the intention of moving more broadly in due course, as the Minister said. This explains why the Government is so desperate to get the whip hand through section 17, the guts of which still remains. The powers which it conveys to the Minister will be turned against every sector of the profession in due course. We have not seen anything like section 17 in the history of industrial relations since the Federation of this nation. Mr Steedman —What about the IRB you set up? Mr PEACOCK —I am glad the honourable member raised the Industrial Relations Bureau because I proposed that it be broken up. In due course it was, and properly so. Why does the honourable member not raise something that is relevant ? From the start, the way in which this Government has approached the issue of health care has been absolutely lamentable. From day one, the current Minister's attitude has been that the Government would start Medicare on 1 February regardless, and that the Government would work out the problems afterwards. To say 'We are starting on 1 February and we do not give a damn about the problems of the practitioners within the health care system' is no way to handle the health care of the nation, no way to handle the health care of individuals and no way to run a government. The Opposition pointed out the serious problems of section 17 when the Medicare legislation was going through the Parliament. We attempted back in September to amend the legislation to remove the excesses that we saw in it then. Yet the Minister, in his headlong pursuit of this grand strategy and the 1 February target date, rejected those constructive changes. Only today has he gone part of the way by picking up one element of an amendment. He has plunged ahead, to put it bluntly, like a man obsessed. In doing so, he has plunged this Government into a quagmire into which, unquestionably, it sinks deeper every day. This Minister has locked the Hawke Government into a confrontation which should never have happened. He has been provocative throughout. He has offered no realistic alternative. He has offered no real compromise because there cannot be compromise when it comes to Labor's socialist objective. That is the reality of it all and that is where the trap comes in. Australians do not want socialist experiments. They do not want to see their family doctor as the punching bag for this Minister's Brave New World. Australians are concerned about health care. They want a health service which is efficient and unobtrusive and which preserves the cornerstone of medicine in Australia-the patient-doctor relationship. They do not want the Minister or his agents intervening in that. They do not want the confrontation they are seeing today and they do not want the lengthening queues and higher costs which this scheme brings. If the Government had taken time to consider the basic things which the public requires in health care, it would not have gone down the dead- end that it has to date. In desperation, the current Minister has seized upon the Australian Democrats' amendment to section 17 proposed in the Senate. He said that the ball is now back in the doctors' court. But the debate has moved on since such changes were first proposed last September. The damage has already been done, as was so well put by the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), today. The debate has moved on since such changes were first proposed. This Minister has created a climate of well-founded distrust about his socialist intentions. A large body of opinion firmly believes that he will still use an amended section 17 to circumvent the civil conscription provisions contained in section 51 of the Constitution. The fact is that the amendment he is now supporting does not fully meet the situation today. The Opposition believes that the Government must show good faith, however belatedly, by acting now to suspend the notorious section 17 entirely until it has received the findings of the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. In that less confrontationist climate the Government can at least sit down with the Australian Medical Association and talk about a fair solution to the impasse; a solution which recognises the fundamental rights of any profession to negotiate a true two-way contract; a solution which lets doctors get on with their work free of concern about the intervention of the Hawke Government and which allows the public to have the health care it deserves. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.27) —The first thing that can be said is that all that was missing from that tirade was an advertisement at the end appealing to pathologists, radiologists and other highly paid medical specialists to contribute to the Liberal Party of Australia. This Opposition has become simply the defender of a few odd elite groups. I have sat in this Parliament for eight years and I have never heard any member of the present Opposition on any occasion defend one workers' strike. Time and again, whatever the rights, in the eight years I have sat in this Parliament members of the Opposition have never supported the rights of working people to strike. Yet on the one occasion when one of the most powerful, elite groups in this society decides to use its power in this way, members of the Opposition are the first people to defend that elite group's right to bring the hospitals of this country to a stop and to threaten those within those hospitals. Indeed, they even have the hide to elevate this elite group into a trade union. Most of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said was simply irrelevant because a trade union is a banding together of employees in relation to an employer. We are talking about private specialists coming into hospitals and making use of those facilities. Most of them are not the employees of the hospital; they make private negotiations with the hospital. These people have been elevated by the Leader of the Opposition into a group of trade unionists; the only group of trade unionists whose right to strike these people have ever been prepared to defend. I think it is worth simply considering in relation to this issue the Liberal Party's handling of health policy over seven years of Fraser Government which was so inept that it introduced five different and contradictory health schemes in just seven years. Of course, when it finally settled on a scheme it was a scheme which gave maximum support to its old allies, the private health funds and the medical profession. It did not matter about the public. Two million Australians were not able to find the $14 a week and more for just basic health cover, and they were not included in those rigidly defined disadvantaged categories. It did not matter that these people lived in fear of illness and accident which could land them in hospital as long as those groups, the private health funds and the private medical profession, were satisfied. Of course the important thing to remember is that those two million people who were left out are not the people who write to newspapers. They are not the people who are able to agitate and bring pressure to bear in the way that the Australian Medical Association can bring pressure to bear. The rights of those two million people were brutally attacked by the provocative actions of the previous Government. However, when the AMA is marginally affected by making demands about public accountability for the $2,000m which the taxpayers pay to the system for their benefits members of the AMA claim that that is an extraordinarily provocative action. They are able to arouse much more opposition than the two million who suffered under the actions of the previous Government. It does not surprise me that the Liberal Party, through the Leader of the Opposition, should come to the support of the AMA. Australians have acknowledged their endorsement of the Labor governments both federally and in the four States . Let me say that the policies we are pursuing in relation to the medical profession are not policies we are pursuing alone; we are actively and willingly supported by all the Labor States. This Opposition is simply a conservative rump which increasingly represents only a small minority of Australian society. We have had success in working with most of the other groups in this society, such as trade unions and business and industry, to create a real economic recovery of which Medicare is one element. There are, of course, a few groups like the AMA which are still clinging to the wreckage on the other side and which, unlike business and other groups in the community, have not recognised the economic realities of Australia in the 1980s. The AMA has been for decades an isolated cartel excluded from almost all market forces by the insurance system and isolated against economic need in recession, again because of this insurance system. This latter point is especially true when this Government's Medicare program provides universal cover which of course underpins the doctors' income even in difficult times. In making these comments about the professionals and their privileges, I do not make them from a narrow, ideological viewpoint. Commentators as diverse as Justice Michael Kirby, the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, and Milton Friedman, of conservative economic fame and probably one of the 'dry' idols of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), have been critical of the protected, isolated position of the profession. Justice Kirby, in his recent Wilkinson Oration, observed: There is no doubt that the Australian community has a growing perception of professional people as selfish self seekers, earning high levels of income in times of economic recession, using the special dependence of the community upon their skill as an immoral bargaining weapon in the pursuit of greater wealth, yet free from much public accountability. I believe that Justice Kirby is right in his comment about Australian attitudes to the professions. I believe that this shows how divorced the Liberal Party of Australia has become from the mainstream of Australian thought that it would be going to the barriers to support the AMA and its irresponsible industrial action over this issue. What this dispute is all about is the Government trying to exert some reasonable and marginal controls over the payment of Medicare benefits. I would have thought that even the Liberal Party would accept that, where $2,000m is being paid out in benefits, the Government has some responsibility to make sure it is spent wisely and properly. I will quote again from Justice Kirby's recent speech. He said: When Parliament votes the public's money it is absolutely basic that it has the right to assert its interpretation of the people's will. He went on to say: The lawyers reap the benefit of legal aid. The doctors and in part the dentists take advantage of Medicare, but it is a fundamental principle of our system of government that public funds come attached with public strings. Despite the Opposition, and despite the opposition out there from a privileged and elite profession, we are determined that there should be some strings in relation to the public funding of the system. What are these public strings we are seeking to attach to the payment of Medicare benefits for diagnostic service in public hospitals? What is this debate all about? When one forgets these elevated fantastical notions in which one transforms the AMA into a trade union and then tries to attach to it all of the rights of employees battling against employers, what is the argument really about? First of all, I can tell honourable members that our proposals are mild indeed when compared with the recommendations of the previous Government's own report from the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals. It recommended: . . . steps be taken to phase out over a period of years the right of private practice for full time salaried specialists. It also recommended: There be an urgent review by each of the employment authorities of rights to private practice in hospitals with a view to limiting its scope, consistent with the underlying intent of the contract between an individual patient and doctor. What did the previous Government do about those strong recommendations from a very conservative report? It must have been a matter of grave concern for Jamison to make such sweeping recommendations. The Fraser Government, of course, ignored them. It always pretended to be a tough government, but every time it really was faced with tough issues it ran away from them, turned away from them, as does the Opposition now on a whole range of issues. This Government has been prepared to take up some of those tough issues, and this is one of them. As I have outlined earlier, the Liberals took no action because it was their own constituency, the highly paid medical specialists, who were affected by these clear recommendations in a conservative report. Who were the beneficiaries of this exploitation of the public hospital system? The answer is obvious. Not only did the Liberal Government ignore Jamison, it ignored what members of its own Party were saying about some of the excessively generous private practice rights that exist in some areas of the public hospital system. I will now read to honourable members what Mr Greiner, the thankfully still Opposition leader in New South Wales for another four years, said when he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee of the New South Wales Parliament. He said: The medical profession has an obligation to ensure that the public funds it accepts, and more importantly commits, are utilised to maximum effect and are properly accounted. Historically, the profession has not adequately recognised this obligation. Mr Greiner went on, when referring to private practice Scheme C in the New South Wales public hospital system: With respect to Scheme C, it is fair to say that a considerable weight of opinion believes it to be excessively generous. This opinion is shared by many staff specialists working under other schemes. Even the profession itself realises that there is exploitation, especially in the area of diagnostic services. The Australian Association of Surgeons, which now leaps to the barricades to defend so-called professional freedom, said in its submission to the Jamison inquiry: There are cases of patients tested to the point of exhaustion for reasons entirely unknown to their principal medical attendant. There is little doubt that many of these diagnostic testing procedures represent an unwarranted invasion of privacy inflicted on the patient and many of them cause unnecessary suffering and hardship. Their cost to the community is almost inestimable. That was not a statement of the Doctors Reform Society, it was a statement of the highly conservative Surgeons Association, when talking about radiologists and pathologists. Unlike the previous Government which ran away from these important issues, this Government gave them careful consideration in the planning of its Medicare program. We do not want to do away with private practice rights in public hospitals because we believe that they are an essential attraction that must be maintained if we are to retain the highest quality medical staff in the public hospital system. I point out that it is not on the whole the salaried doctors who are on strike-though we have some opposition here in Canberra-it is primarily the visiting doctors coming in from outside who simply cream off the cake who have been taking most of this irresponsible action. These people would rather strike than make a submission to a proper inquiry because they know that the weight of logic is on the Government's side. They would rather use their industrial muscle than rationally argue their case before an independent inquiry . The Opposition argues that the Federal Government has no right to intrude on a contract freely negotiated between hospitals and doctors. But this is nonsense. After all, who is it who pays Medicare benefits for private practice work in public hospitals? It is, of course, the Commonwealth Government through the taxpayer funded Medicare program. The fact of the matter is that hospitals have no direct interest in limiting private practice rights because they do not have to foot the bill for them. Of course, now that we have four State Labor Governments they have taken a realistic and responsible attitude to this matter and we have all worked closely together in developing the reasonable limitations that the section 17 guidelines impose on these private practice rights. But ultimately the final responsiblity rests with the Commonwealth Government because, as I stated previously in this speech, it is our responsibility to ensure that the $2,000m in Medicare benefits are properly and wisely spent. Members of the Opposition have rambled on and now even accuse the Government of nationalising the public hospital system. I remind them that the doctors who work in those hospitals are taxpayer trained and use taxpayer funded facilities and therefore should accept their public accountability. It would be absolutely contrary to the interests of any government, especially a Labor Government, to introduce any guidelines under section 17 that were so unreasonable as to cause an exodus of doctors from the public hospital system. The Government and I have gone out of our way to be responsible and considerate towards the reasonable individual objections put forward by the AMA. For instance, issues such as income restraint and national facility charges have been referred to the joint Government and AMA Penington Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals which the Government established to consider the broader questions of private practice rights. Today the Government has gone even further by guaranteeing immediate appeal rights to the Federal Parliament, the highest authority in the land, by introducing a Bill which will permit guidelines under section 17 of the Health Legislation Amendment Act to be disallowed by either House of the Parliament if either House feels them to be unreasonable. Moreover the Commonwealth Government is limited because it could not put into practice any of those guidelines without the co-operation and support of at least most of the States. It is the Government's sincere hope that this decision today should settle the current industrial dispute before it escalates to the point where patients' well -being is endangered. As Senator Haines observed when she recently put forward her constructive proposal for parliamentary scrutiny, if the AMA refuses to accept this proposal to settle the dispute it 'certainly makes a mockery of the Opposition's assertion that the row would not have occurred if the Government had agreed to amendments last year'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.42) —If there are two things which emerge from this debate, they are these: Firstly, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has been digging his own grave in his portfolio by his attitude to the medical profession . It is not just a question of the issues in this matter but whether there can be any confidence at all between the Minister and the profession on which he must rely to introduce his Medicare program. If I were a member of this profession, if the principal body that I belonged to for professional and other reasons had been called an isolated cartel, if I had been referred to as a member of an elite profession, supremely privileged and cut off from reality, if I had been referred to as the equivalent of the Builders Labourers Federation in the way I went about my business, if indeed in the previous few years I had been a visiting medical officer in a public hospital, if I were one of the almost half of such doctors who still give voluntary service in treating pensioners and disadvantaged patients, if I were a surgeon who had trained for 13 years before getting a fellowship and had a professional life which could be shortened by failing eyesight or some other physical disability, if every day I were running risks in deciding on people's lives, if I were giving service in a painstaking way and if I had heard this debate and this Minister referring to me, by extension, in the terms that he has used, I would have no confidence in anything he said. I would be outraged at the way he had attacked my profession. I would believe nothing he said. I would be utterly determined to press for what I regarded as constitutional rights. That is the first thing that emerges from this debate. The second thing that emerges from this debate relates to the questions that will be asked by patients and their relatives. They will ask: 'Why on earth is the Minister doing it? Why on earth is he elevating this matter of section 17, which is of supreme importance to the doctors who believe that he is using it to overcome the civil conscription provisions of the Constitution, and which is of no real importance to him in his whole Medicare architecture, to the point where he has put his own ministerial position in jeopardy?' I simply cannot understand why this matter of the diagnosticians' fees in public hospitals should be elevated to the point where it can threaten the whole architecture which the Minister, from his side of politics, has regarded as the greatest social reform of the Hawke Government. Basically what has been happening is that the Minister has said that his concern is with the fees charged and the level of income earned by diagnostic specialists in public hospitals within the States. He put forward a lot of arguments to show that some of those contracts gave unusually and unnecessarily high levels of income to those specialists. That may well be so. He quoted from Mr Greiner in support of this. I have absolutely no reason to doubt what Mr Greiner has said. Indeed, I acknowledge what has been said in the report of the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals. It has transpired in the course of the debate over the last few months that these diagnostic specialists are in fact charging the schedule fee or less to their patients under their existing contracts; that they are being charged facilities charges by hospitals for the use of public facilities as indeed they should be because these are provided by taxpayers. Hospitals are already doing that. It has emerged that Dr Cornwall, the Minister of Health in South Australia, said that he was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements he had made with the AMA in that State. Dr Blewett then asked him to implement price control by State regulation on the doctors who were already complying with contracts which were within the schedule fee or below. It also emerged that the Victorian Minister of Health, Mr Roper, had come to a similar conclusion with his AMA and that he was not concerned with proceeding with section 17. However, to help his Federal colleague off the hook, he also introduced price control regulation. The New South Wales Government, with a new health Minister, who is a little more personable than the previous one, in the midst of a State election did not go ahead with price control regulation. He too indicated that diagnostic specialists in New South Wales were indeed charging no more than the schedule fee and in many cases were charging less and that the radiologists were putting back 60 per cent of their earnings into facilities charges. Those contracts may still not be all right. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that. They may still be giving an unfair advantage to certain diagnostic groups. But, heaven forbid, there are ways and means of overcoming that without elevating this dispute to the level of a constitutional challenge. If the doctors genuinely and sincerely believe, and given the remarks that this Minister has made over a very long time, I am not surprised that they did not believe this, that section 17 is a way of getting around the restrictions on the conscription of doctors prohibited under section 51 of the Constitution and if they regard it as being an absolutely untenable Federal control over their, in effect, small businesses and private independent practices, why should not the Minister remove these offending sections and await the outcome of the Penington inquiry, have discussions on ways of containing the incomes of those diagnostic specialists in the State hospital systems, sit down in a reasonable way to do this and the whole problem will stop immediately? All this strike action will stop immediately if he agrees to do that. That is what the Opposition has proposed today. That was the content of the private member's Bill which I put forward earlier but which the Government refused to consider in the House. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The Minister began his speech by stating something that was absolutely incorrect. If he deals with the AMA in this way I can understand why it would have some concern about dealing with him further. He said that the Opposition had defended the doctors' right to strike. On no occasion have I publicly done so. On no occasion have we in this House done so. I think it is appalling that professional people looking after patients in hospitals are on strike. I would be concerned if they were asked to sign contracts which they regarded as unconscionable. It would be a different matter if as a result of refusing to sign those contracts they were denied access to the hospitals. In that case the responsiblity for the whole action would be with the hospitals, the employing authorities, and with the Minister. The Opposition has not defended the right of these professional people to strike. I put that on the record and deny as absolutely incorrect something which the Minister has said. Equally we have not equated doctors with trade unionists. We have merely pointed out that the ways of dealing with human beings, ways which we believe are necessary in the industrial relations field and which we support, are those of reasonable conciliation, arbitration, fair hearing and abiding by the results . These rules are not one sided contracts that can be altered by one side. These rules apply to trade unionists. We do not see why the same civil liberties should not apply to professional people. That does not mean to say that we have equated doctors with trade unionists. Doctors are in a totally different situation. They are professional, independent people for the most part. In fact they are running something like a small business. The main concern the Opposition has is for the patients. The patients in the hospitals who are waiting to have elective surgery done and are being held up, and their families who are desperately concerned about their health, ask this Minister why on earth he wants section 17 of the Health Legislation Amendment Act so badly. Is it a critical part of the architecture of his great social reform so called? Is it essential to drive the doctors to distraction over a concern about their constitutional position and the 1946 amendment to the Constitution? Why on earth is the Minister doing it? Section 17 is absolutely inessential for the architecture of Medicare. Medicare can go on perfectly happily without it. Ways and means can be found, sitting down with the doctors after the Penington report and after the removal of these clauses, to deal with these relatively minor matters of the diagnosticians in the public hospitals. The Opposition asks the Minister to return to sanity in this matter and we ask for it on behalf of the patients. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(3.52) —It is not surprising that the Opposition seems to be pre-occupied with the payment of doctors' fees and is unable to accept the decision that the people of Australia made in March last year. The concentration of honourable members opposite on this issue is very disturbing. It would seem to me that many issues in the health care area are much more important and perhaps deserve a great deal more consideration. There are the issues of preventive medicine, industrial health, community health, health education and medical research. All of these matters are important and should require our attention. It is a shame that we are continually confronted with disruption and confusion by honourable members opposite. I have heard Opposition members speaking on this issue. We are not talking about the majority of doctors. We are talking about those diagnostic doctors who have a private practice in a public hospital. They represent a very small percentage of doctors-much less than one per cent of all doctors. The Australian Medical Association which purports to represent doctors in this country represents perhaps 60 per cent of doctors. When one qualifies in medicine in this country one automatically becomes a member of the AMA free of charge. It extends that privilege immediately to those who have qualified. In fact there are very substantial privileges for those who have just qualified. When one talks about practising doctors and doctors in the work force the number is perhaps distorted. I believe the issue is twofold. The first and most important is that it is not a new requirement that the States and the Government should be concerned about what goes on in public hospitals and about the rights of private practice in public hospitals. It needs to be remembered that the taxpayers educate the doctors. The taxpayers build the hospitals, they equip the hospitals, they staff the hospitals and they pay for the administration in those hospitals. It seems very unreasonable that the Government should not have any control over what happens within those hospitals, indeed that the taxpayers, through the Government, should not have any control over what happens in those hospitals. We in Western Australia are perhaps a little more enlightened. A number of years ago debate was carried out on this argument, We have agreements in the public hospitals that are substantially within the guidelines laid down. It seems amazing that the schedule fee should be controversial. It is an arbitrated fee independently agreed on by the medical benefits fees inquiry. I find it very hard to understand why we have so much difficulty with charging the schedule fee in a public hospital. I will draw an analogy. Is the Opposition suggesting that school teachers using public facilities in government schools should be able to carry out classes during school hours in classrooms that are empty, be paid, and that the Government not have any say in what happens in those schools? I think that is exactly what we are talking about here. We are talking about publicly funded facilities and the rights of the Government to have some sort of control over what happens in those facilities. The second issue-it is one for which I have had some sympathy with the doctors- is with regard to agreements under which doctors believed there was no consultative or appeal mechanisms. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has been involved in consultation since August. In response to the concerns of the AMA and other doctors a number of discussions and concessions have been made available. I have been involved in one or two of those discussions betweeen the Minister and the AMA in my State. The Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals was set up to provide for appropriate appeals and consultative mechanisms. Subsequently the Government undertook that during the Penington inquiry no change of any sort would occur within the guidelines. The Government also accepted the Committee's recommendation relating to appeal and review procedures. The Government said that it would abide by the Penington Committee's recommendations. Today the Minister has made a further concession with regard to parliamentary scrutiny of his power to make guidelines. Clearly the ball is back in the court of the doctors and the AMA. We have to wait to see what the AMA will do. Will it act on behalf of a very small number of practitioners, a very elite and privileged group? Will it be as obdurate as it has been in the past or will it be responsive? Can the AMA be trusted? I receive monthly reports from the Western Australian branch of the Australian Medical Association. On the front page of the Branch News for March 1984 it is stated: The increase in demand for beds in teaching hospitals is pushing staff and resources to the limit. This is on the front page of the AMA Branch News for doctors throughout Western Australia. I thought that this was a source of concern. Perhaps patients are suffering as a consequence. I made inquiries of the medical superintendents and the administrators at all of these major hospitals. What did I find? I found that this assertion was mendacious in the extreme. In fact there is no significant increase in the number of patients in public hospitals. There is no change to the number of patients. The AMA is just continuing its attacks on Medicare which are ideologically based rather than being made for any practical reason. For the vast majority of practitioners-I am talking about practitioners who are working in general practice-the Medicare arrangements mean no change. For the vast majority of Australians they mean no change except that two million Australians who were not covered for health care are now covered. That is something to which I find it very difficult to take exception. I suppose it is an indication of the Opposition's stance on this issue. This debate on Medicare has been a very tortuous one. Last August the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) said that Medicare-perhaps this is an indication of the level of debate from the Opposition-would bring about an influx of free-loading sick people from overseas. That is the standard of debate that we have had. Today the Opposition has talked about the doctor-patient relationship. What on earth the private practice arrangement within public hospitals has to do with doctor-patient relationship I do not know. Doctors in diagnostic positions hardly ever see the patients with whom they are dealing. Today we had the old story about one's choice of a doctor and how that should be one's inalienable right. That is maintained within the Medicare agreement. The Opposition talked about how people should be able to have the specialist of their choice. I put it to honourable members that it is not possible that the vast majority of the public is in any position to indicate or to make a correct decision as to who is a good specialist and what sorts of services he provides. Again we have had a large degree of misleading information. What this issue comes down to is simply this: The Government provides facilities, equipment, staff and administration in public hospitals. The Government pays out about $2 billion a year for the provision of those services in public hospitals. It is fair and reasonable that the Government should have a say in how that money is spent and what goes on in its public facilities. There is a need for a change of direction of the health debate in this country away from how doctors are paid. I know of very few doctors who are struggling. There is a need to turn towards those issues on which I believe we should concentrate, such as preventive medicine, industrial health, community health, research and health education. There is a need for the public to be aware of the fact that the Government substantially funds public facilities in which private practice rights are given. The Government should always be in control and have a say in what happens in those public facilities. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is concluded. Assent to the following Bills reported: Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1984 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 1984 Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill 1984 Sex Discrimination Bill 1984 Mr SPEAKER —I have received the following message from the Senate: The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day: (1) That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon- (a) whether any or all of the tapes and transcripts delivered by The Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 February 1984 are authentic and genuine; and (b) whether the conduct of the judge as revealed in the tapes and transcripts referred to in sub-paragraph (a) constituted misbehaviour or incapacity which could amount to sufficient grounds for an address to the Governor-General in Council from both Houses of the Parliament praying for his removal from office pursuant to section 72 (ii) of the Constitution. (2) That provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings of the committee be contained in a subsequent Resolution. (3) That the inquiry commence after the polling day of the New South Wales election. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this Resolution. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the message be taken into consideration forthwith. Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Joint Select Committee Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(4.04) —I move: (1) That the House of Representatives, having considered message No. 181 of the Senate relating to the proposed appointment of a joint select committee to inquire into and report on certain matters relating to tapes and transcripts delivered by the Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 February 1984, does not concur with the resolution of the Senate; and (2) that a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution. This resolution was born in the Senate on the concept that the Senate felt that it would be able to do a service for the people of Australia by having a joint committee of inquiry to inquire into some type of evidence that appears to have been obtained from the Age newspaper. The Age newspaper was able to furnish a series of tapes-I think four in number-and transcripts, which had no bearing on the tapes, relating to telephone conversations which allegedly took place between certain people. At the outset, it appears very clear that the Senate may establish such a committee. The Government understands that that may well happen . But from the Government's point of view it is beyond belief to think that, because a newspaper produces some form of tape or transcript, the national Parliament then establishes a committee which undertakes what is virtually a trial of the alleged behaviour of a member of the judiciary. Prior to the recent parliamentary break this House was able to answer any questions put forward by the Opposition at the time on a number of matters, all of which questions related quite significantly to a judge of the High Court of Australia. Mr Steele Hall —But you did not really answer, did you? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We did answer the questions, despite the objection. Opposition members-Oh! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Honourable members should contain themselves. What is very significant and what ought to be listened to is that what the Opposition is about apparently happened-if it did happen-in 1979. Mr Peacock —Ah! But you concede that it may have happened? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I am asking the question: Why is it that after five years we suddenly unearth a suggestion that something has happened which entitles this Parliament to appoint a committee of inquiry into the veracity of matters arising from a newspaper which has produced something which appears to be a tape . The question that the Australian public wants answered is: By what senior authority do honourable members opposite, members of parliament, place themselves above the law? Mr Peacock —You talked to us about the smuggling of birds. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I notice that the honourable member chases other ones, so what is the problem? Mr Peacock —I do not know about that. You talked about smuggling. You did not tell us anything about the facts of this matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable member is so interested in birds, as he obviously is, I say to him that the smuggling case applied to a police officer who was prosecuted by the then Attorney-General, who failed in the prosecution. The then Attorney-General then lodged an ex officio indictment against the man after nine months delay because the man had something to say about other matters that did not relate to birds. He happened to be attending the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. During the administration of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), that man suggested-and I am pleased to see that one of the honourable members concerned is present opposite-that the Customs officers and the Narcotics Bureau were not functioning properly and were unable to prevent the introduction into Australia of drugs such as heroin. Because he gave evidence in camera to the Williams Royal Commission the then Government persecuted and prosecuted him. The Leader of the Opposition was silly enough to talk about birds. The man I speak of was acquitted. Why the Opposition wants to know about the Age tapes relates to the same rule. No one must cross the establishment opposite. The Opposition wants to have a joint committee by which it will place itself above the law to assess whether the judge is fit and proper to remain on the Bench. What are the special characteristics of members of the Opposition? Why are they above the law? Mr Peacock —I am simply a member of the Parliament and the Constitution requires the Parliament to examine the issue. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. The issue is very clear. The Constitution requires the Parliament to do certain things when there is clear evidence of illegality or criminal conduct, but not on the basis of the doubtful, hearsay proposition that we have here. We have the four tapes of the Age. We will wait patiently for six tapes from some other newspaper which might well relate to an alleged conversation that took place between the Leader of the Opposition and somebody else in this country. Is this the standard of conduct we are now to condone? When somebody produces a magical thing called a tape are we immediately to appoint a committee of this Parliament to try that person? Is this the standard of proof we now apply? Cannot this national Parliament rely on its own laws to prosecute the question of whether there has been any illegality, to indicate clearly whether there has been any misconduct? I think that is the great worry. This issue has nothing to do with the fact that the Opposition dislikes a member of the High Court. The reasons for its dislike are not related to his judgments but to the fact that he used to be a member of the Australian Labor Party. That is the measure of the Opposition's objection to the man. This is not the first time that criminal proceedings have been launched at what I would call the instigation of the philosophy which has applied in the Opposition. If one looks at the Sankey case when Ministers of a former Labor government faced conspiracy charges, one will see the same motivation to denigrate and downgrade anybody who had any affiliation with the Labor Party and who had been a member of this Parliament, whether a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate. If we allow this sort of conduct to be tolerated, it means in political terms that the Opposition will be looking for tapes and information from all the pimps , informers and fizgigs around the place, to give it some information that somebody in the past did something wrong, because it has a tape or a complaint. If that is the standard, I say that democracy in this country is finished. No person could now enter public life and be secure from the fact that somebody might say in the Parliament: 'I have a tape. We will now have a committee and a trial. We will summon people to attend and explain their conduct. Are they guilty or innocent?'. What right have members of the Opposition to place themselves above the law of the land? They have none at all, unless there is at least some clear evidence of illegality or misconduct. The matters that the Age newspaper was so anxious to promote, after a delay of some years, were given to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solicitor- General. In both cases they clearly indicated that there was no evidence of any suggestion of illegality or misconduct. Those opinions were given to the Leader of the Opposition. This matter has been the subject of a very keen debate in the Senate on the basis that members of the Senate felt that they would be able to judge for all time whether there was any merit in the tapes. Let me make it very clear that this happens to be the start of an example whereby apparently the Senate will forever have a committee that will be what is called the McCarthyist committee of the nation. The committee will always have the numbers to be able to ask people to give evidence before it on any matter. Where are the rights of privacy or the rights of people to defend themselves, if this is the standard of conduct? The Government makes it very clear that it certainly will not be able, in the Senate, to stop the committee going ahead. It does not approve of it, but if the Senate wishes to establish it, that is what the Senate will do. We make the point, though, that there was never any evidence of misconduct or illegality by any person, as evidenced by the tapes submitted. That is very clear. The other point is that the manufacturing of evidence by tapes leaves a lot to be desired from the point of view of conduct. As honourable members know, this particular ' evidence' has been the subject of examination by the Joint Police Task Force and others. There is clear evidence that the tapes are certainly not what one would call original tapes. They have been edited to some extent at least, if in fact they are valid in any sense of the word. Mr Steele Hall —Have you listened to them? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have not listened to them. But it would not be very hard for a couple of people, such as those of whom the honourable member knows, to manufacture tapes; not very hard at all. The motivation is the interesting thing . After a delay of five years the tapes are produced-conveniently, we will say- on the basis that they might affect a State election in New South Wales. That was the real motivation. This question now arises: Why is it that the Opposition , which has so much access to this knowledge and which was obviously able to gain some advantage from it, cannot produce the person who prepared the tape? That is the point that the Opposition should face up to. Under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, a law of this Parliament, as honourable members know, that person is liable to years of imprisonment and a penalty of $5 ,000 or $6,000. Also, any honourable member who uses the tape is liable to the same penalty. I know the Opposition's normal sense of courage, and that might be the reason why it is not prepared to do anything about it. That law of the Commonwealth purports to protect the privacy of the people of this nation. It says, in effect, that nobody is entitled to intercept a telephone conversation made by anybody. Nobody is entitled to do that, and if a person does it, he will find himself in gaol and subject to a massive penalty. Yet once that has been done, the Opposition uses this criterion: 'Give it to us and we will see whether we can use it to our benefit'. Is this the standard of what one could call 'government' by the Opposition? Will we now have a trial by the media whereby, because the Opposition is desperate to return to the government benches, it will use any method to denigrate anybody, as I say, even if it is illegal, and not bother to prosecute the people who broke the law? Do members of the Opposition expect the people of the nation to judge them in this way as being fit and proper people to be on the government benches? It is just an aberration that in the Senate there is a splinter group of senators who feel that they always want to get into the act and be the centre of attraction, so that they will set up this committee and appear on it like the Perry Masons and hope that the television cameras focus on how brilliant they are in cross-examination. But we could say to them: 'What about the person or persons who broke the law? What about all of those police officers or others who betrayed their trust and intercepted telephone conversations?' How many committees will we have which will listen to all the other tapes that have been taken about any one of us, including all members of the Opposition? The Opposition will be the recipient of every tape that is brought forward. People may say, with regard to the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard): 'Listen to what he said on 27 June 1981 when he was talking to Mr O'Reilly about how he could not do anything about the straw companies and the tax that they were evading'. Will we have a committee on the question of what he said on that occasion? Is this the standard of conduct? Mr Howard —I made all that public. I have nothing to hide. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member has plenty to hide. He has a stack to hide when we look at the report that he tabled. He did nothing for years. That is the point. We will let him get out of it because he is now in opposition. But if we are bedevilled by a series of tapes and leaks by people who feel something should have been done after a period of years, surely this nation demands a better standard than that. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act is certainly right when it talks about severely punishing people who have the capacity to intercept telephone conversations and then attempt to use them. People can be punished on two counts-the interceptor and the person who receives the information that was intercepted. In other words, the Age newspaper and its proprietors are liable to that penalty. But are they prepared to say: 'We do not have to disclose any information'? Mr Peacock —Why do you hate the Age? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not hate the Age. I am trying to preserve some method of standard of conduct in this nation. It is very hard to do so with the Opposition that we have, because it is running true to form. I refer honourable members to the 1975 period and the accusations of conspiracy made against four former Ministers of the Government. It was a despicable, rotten action, sponsored by a person called Mr Sankey. The Opposition still cannot tell me-it is not game to say-who paid Mr Sankey's costs of $80,000. We see champerty, maintenance and all sorts of criminal actions which the Opposition is prepared to condone. It is very clear that we are discussing matters of major significance at this stage. A High Court judge is expected to appear before a Senate committee which will ask him: 'Did you do this or did you not?' I assume he will say: 'I did not do it'. What will the committee do then? It will probably say: 'We do not believe you'. That is about as far as we will go. But I make this point: Why can we not find the person or persons who did the interception? Why can we not find the police officer or some other person-this is evidence-who said: 'On such and such a date I heard this happening; I understand the position'. Then we might be able to say that some person exists. But in this case all we have is some tapes and some transcripts. God knows who prepared them; they certainly do not relate to the tapes because we cannot find the tapes relating to the transcripts. The nation will then see a resolution of this Parliament suggesting that we had better do something about this matter. I think it has been made very clear by a couple of senators that they have many other tapes. So where does it all end? Mr Peacock —Who has them? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know. The Leader of the Opposition had better ask them , because they are on his side. Mr Peacock —Who are the senators? You just said that a couple of senators had tapes. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, I said that I think it has been made very clear. The Leader of the Opposition should ask them. Mr Peacock —You just said that a couple of senators had tapes. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition should not get so enthusiastic, because we might find a tape on him, and we would all be anxious to have a committee to look into that. If this is the standard of conduct, it just shows what we are heading into. Someone produces a tape, and, whether in the Senate or in the House of Representatives-I suggest that there is more evidence in the Senate than in the House of Representatives, apparently-we then, because it is leaked to a newspaper, have to say to the Parliament: 'We have to do something about this matter'. I put it to you quite squarely, Mr Speaker: No responsible democracy in the world would be reacting to this sort of nonsense, particularly when the period of delay is five years. Five years ago something allegedly happened. We now have to have a committee that will investigate whether a judge is a fit and proper person to remain on the High Court of Australia. It remains very clear that this judge was hounded in the past on a conspiracy action simply because he was a member of the Australian Labor Party. Because apparently that is not to be forgotten, any allegation, spurious as it may be, fabricated as it obviously could be, by tapes and transcripts, will merit a further investigation of the person. No court in Australia would deem to think that there was even a prima facie case on the submission of a tape or a document. Where are the people behind this? Where is the evidence of the informant? Why cannot that person be put in the witness box and tested as to 'What were your duties?', or, better still, 'How much did you get for the information that you are now peddling?' Is that the standard of conduct that the Opposition wants in Australia? I would say that many thinking parliamentarians would agree that that is the last thing that they would want to see happening to their constituents or anyone else. If the standard of allegation now in this nation is, 'Bypass the courts; do not give any information to the police or to anyone else; just produce a tape; get a couple of actors to do it if you like, and use their voices perhaps to emulate someone else, and we will use that as a fabrication', where does one draw the line after that if every newspaper in the world publishes that and the Opposition gives it some credibility by putting forward a resolution of this type? In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose that he had to rely on the Senate to produce the resolution. But this Senate Committee, which will obviously be established, will, I would say, be the forerunner of many, because the precedent from here on will be, no matter to whom it relates, if it is a person in public life, a person in another parliament or a person on the Bench, every one of them will now be suspect on the basis that perhaps someone produces a tape or a transcript. They will all be carted off to this high-powered group called a Senate committee which will put itself above everyone else and dictate whether those concerned are fit and proper people to remain in their positions. The Constitution is very clear. It would require very strong and substantial evidence, certainly tested in the normal judicial way, before any action would be taken on the joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament pursuant to section 72 of the Constitution. That is the required standard: The judicial test , with the evidence tested properly, and the question of findings by a judge or a court on that conduct. It is not this extraordinary situation of a newspaper, a media outlet, getting hold of information, paid for or otherwise. For that reason, we reject the proposition. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.24) —The Opposition will not agree to this motion. The motion, moved by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), is virtually telling the Senate to take a running jump at itself and is telling this whole Parliament to ignore its rights and, indeed, its duties under the Constitution. We support the establishment of a Joint Select Committee, which was contained within message No. 181 of the Senate, and we reject the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister to advise the Senate that this House does not concur in the resolution that was passed in that chamber. Before I address the substance of the matters contained in the resolution calling for a joint inquiry of this Parliament, let me just say one thing. I have just listened to 20 minutes of some of the greatest hypocrisy spoken in this Parliament, in which the Deputy Prime Minister of this country stood before the Parliament and described honourable members on this side of the House as wishing to peddle illegal material, tapes and transcripts, and to use them on any occasion to bring down anybody. There is one harsh reality of which the people of Australia are well aware. There is but one group of people in this Parliament who savaged and ruined the reputation of an Australian by dint of tapes, without any trial and without his having any opportunity to answer for himself. That clique was the Cabinet group, subsequently endorsed by the Caucus, which contained within its ranks the Deputy Prime Minister, who moved against David Combe and shattered his livelihood and his reputation. Let not the Deputy Prime Minister come into this Parliament today and tell me that he and his Party are the apotheosis of civil liberties when they have torn them asunder, without the opportunity being given to a man to be able to protect himself. I will not listen to that rubbish or let it go through, when he is prepared to crucify a man and to come in here with crocodile tears, stroking his platitudes until they purred, and saying to us that he is the only person and his is the only group concerned with civil liberties. No wonder we oppose the sort of motion that he puts up. I do not intend to go into all of the background of the matter. I pose the question: Why did the Government not have this matter investigated from the moment it was raised? We would have been spared a month-two weeks in this Parliament and two weeks during the New South Wales election campaign-if this Government had moved expeditiously and had accepted our advice that the matter ought to be inquired into. As the Deputy Prime Minister has conceded, it is to be inquired into, anyhow. This Government has allowed this nation to suffer the penalty of having this hullabaloo going on for a month when it could have acted upon it immediately. It has duck-shoved, run away and obfuscated, and now in the end, when it could pick up a joint inquiry, the terms of which said that the Committee was not to commence its hearing until after the holding of the New South Wales election, it will not even pick that up. The Government knows the inevitability of an inquiry which will be launched in the Senate itself. The reason the Opposition supports a joint inquiry is that the Constitution, under which all citizens and this Parliament are bound, contains in section 72( ii) the provision that both Houses of the Parliament are to address this matter. If that is what the Constitution says-and it does; both the House and the Senate -is it not preferable that if a committee is going to inquire into the matter, both Houses be represented on it, because the Constitution requires both Houses to address the matter? The Government will duck, weave and obfuscate and use its numbers to defeat this Committee, but it will not be able to use its numbers to defeat the Committee of the Senate, because the Senate, recognising the role of the Parliament, will take its path and will launch a Senate inquiry. We were asked today why we were placing ourselves above the law. We are the only ones abiding by the law because the law provides for both Houses of the Parliament to participate in this matter. That is the harsh underlying reality so far as the law is concerned. It is not a question of politics. As I reminded honourable members, paragraph (3) of the resolution passed by the Senate nearly three weeks ago stated that the inquiry was not even to commence until after the holding of the New South Wales election. To come here today with a constant crying of crocodile tears and to tell us that we are interested only in destroying the civil liberties of distinguished Australians when but one group has done that in the last 12 months, namely, the Government, ought to be treated with the contempt I am giving it. Now I go to the matter. The reason that the Opposition is proceeding with this course of action is that it believes both Houses ought to be dealing with the matter, a matter that is devolved by the Constitution on the whole Parliament and not on the Senate alone. If the Government will not allow the proposed joint parliamentary inquiry to go ahead, we will move in the Senate, as I have indicated, for it to proceed. Just remember that, for all the abuse that was forthcoming a moment ago, we did not rush into the Parliament and kick heads, as some pundits expected us to do. If one traces the history of this matter one will see that this Opposition has behaved responsibly throughout, right from the first moment. We asked for the matters to be put before us in a sanitised form with the names deleted to protect the innocent, and the Government refused. We called for a judicial inquiry, and the Government refused. We called for a royal commission, and the Government refused. Now we call for a joint select committee as required under the Constitution for both Houses to play their role, and the Government refuses again. Step by step we have taken responsible actions, and the Government, which castigates the forthcoming Senate committee, has known all along that it would face that fact and has sought to shift the onus on to others. It has sought to shift the ground so that it can delay and delay in the hope that it would be able, through that delay, to escape the investigation that is required. It will not. We even moved a censure of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and of the Government and were unable to get a response. We have given the Government opportunity after opportunity and by its very obduracy it has created the sensationalism that has surrounded this matter. Now once more it has refused . It has refused to agree to the proposal for a joint select committee, a vehicle through which it can, as a government, act; and it will take the consequences of its actions. Let us review briefly the Government's arguments for refusing to deal properly with this matter. The Government admits that misbehaviour is a matter for the Parliament, but it says that the Parliament is not at liberty to determine what the criterion for misbehaviour is. What fanciful nonsense is that! What tortuous legal logic! It is plain nonsense. The Constitution says plainly that it is for the Parliament to determine what misbehaviour is. If that is the case, the Parliament has to be at liberty to determine what the criterion is. The Government, following the opinions of Mr Temby and of the Solicitor-General, says that there are only two grounds for misbehaviour-behaviour attaching to the performance of the judge in his judicial office and misbehaviour in the sense of criminal misconduct. Even if we accepted that these were the only grounds, which we do not because opinion in the legal community on this is divided, because there are no precedents and because the Convention debates and the authorities we have quoted before are far more divided than the Solicitor-General suggests, and even if we accepted the Government's constricted grounds, which are severely constricted, it is still the duty of no one but this Parliament to examine the relevant material and to make a judgment as to misbehaviour. It is not up to the Attorney -General, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to tell the Parliament that we have to accept their word. What sort of parliamentary behaviour is that? It is an absolute denial of the role of the Parliament, and the Government knows deep down that it is. The Attorney-General and the Deputy Prime Minister, despite their difference in years, may belong to a generation of Labor people who have a firm belief that it is the sacred duty of those in power to tell people what is good for them. But we do not. Fortunately the Parliament still has the power to override that arrogant assumption and to assert its own rights, and the Senate is about to assert its rights. It is now up to this Government, if it is fair dinkum, to join with us in a joint committee so that it is not left just to a Senate committee, which is hardly the ideal situation but which is better than the sheer hypocrisy that is going on in denying a joint committee at the moment. What springs to mind when one thinks of the personal hypocrisy of the Prime Minister's position on this? He has been the man in this Parliament who has been prepared to use illegally obtained material when he considered such use to be in the public interest in 1972. What hypocrisy! Those opposite are the only people who have been able to use, or even wanted to use, such material to destroy another person. The fact is that the Government is presently party to a number of investigations. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking are but two where important work has allegedly been done, as I read what they say, partly by the use of some illegally obtained material. That is not an ideal situation, but it is the reality. Sometimes the use of such material is justified. I cannot leave this question of authenticity which the Deputy Prime Minister dwelt on for a time without drawing the attention of this House to some recent statements by the Premier of New South Wales. He has recently dropped his accusation that the tapes and the transcripts are fakes. Instead, he is calling for the pursuit of the police and the punishment of the police. The tapes and the transcripts, according to him, have been shown to be sufficiently authentic and he is insisting on the gaoling of those who made them. If they are a fiction , would he be doing that? It is outrageous for the Premier, having determined for himself that the tapes are authentic, now to take on the role of judge and jury without there having been any identification, any charges laid, any trial and with outright besmirching of the police as he sets about the pursuit of those he wishes to incarcerate. But by that action he authenticates the tapes. This question of the authentication of the tapes has dragged on for far too long . Several senior former police officers have stated, and I assume that they are absolutely correct, that the Government could have authenticated them within five minutes, as the Age has claimed it has been able to do. All the argument about authenticity is only a prop again to run away from the reality that is facing the Government, a reality which one House of this Parliament at least will be able to face up to. The Government has no real justification for its non-action. Indeed, by its inaction, it is putting at risk, to put it mildly, the reputation of the judiciary. Our system of public institutions operates on trust and confidence. Our parliamentary system, our Public Service, our education system and all of our major public institutions can function effectively only in an atmosphere in which the public knows that it is going to get fair and unbiased treatment from those in power. We are not seeing that played out in here. We are seeing a rejection of a sensible move in the Senate for the establishment of a joint committee on the Age tapes. We have before us a motion to tell the Senate that we do not concur with the resolution of the Senate. I can tell the Government that we do not concur with the motion it has moved. We concur with message No. 181 from the Senate and we will support the Senate in its endeavour to investigate the matter on its own if a joint committee cannot go ahead. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.40) —It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, that we do not have equal responsibilities in this matter. The Government has far greater responsibilities in seeing that what is done in this case is correct and proper and does not entertain too seriously what I might describe as the rather cavalier attitude being taken by the Opposition. The so-called trial that is now taking place and the mud throwing at a very senior member of our judiciary do no one in this Parliament any honour. Mr Peacock —I didn't even mention him. Mr YOUNG —The Leader of the Opposition mentioned him. He arranged for him to be mentioned in the Queensland Parliament in the same way that he arranged for David Combe to be mentioned in this Parliament. Mr Howard —That is untrue. Mr YOUNG —It is true. That is what the Opposition did and that is exactly what it is up to now. One would have thought that if evidence so flimsy could have been used previously against members of the judiciary, there would have been some case prior to this whereby the Parliament might have conducted an investigation into the activities of members of the judiciary. But no one has entertained that idea. No one in the Parliament has regarded seriously the proposal that we conduct some sort of quasi investigation into the activities of a member of the High Court of Australia. Mr Ruddock —All the allegations your colleagues made were not serious in the past? Is that right? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Dundas. Mr YOUNG —The Opposition is trying to find that person guilty and to have him removed, irrespective of the outcome of the Senate inquiry. That is what it is trying to do. It may not be the outcome of the Senate inquiry that worries honourable members opposite so much. It may be a question of what they can keep saying about this person to bring more and more pressure to bear so that the people of Australia eventually will believe that it is in their interest and the person's interest for that person to resign from the High Court. Let me say a couple of other things about these tapes and their authenticity. The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to think the matter is very serious, but he supports a motion which in paragraph (a) questions the authenticity of the tapes and transcripts. That is in the motion which the Opposition is supporting today. The Senate has not adopted the attitude that all this material is authentic. Let me also tell the House that, in addition to the allegations that have been made in the last few months, an allegation has been made that this material was handed to the Fraser Government five years ago and that the Fraser Government did not take any action on these matters. Let me tell the House what a member of the United States Supreme Court said about such activities as we are discussing now. Mr Justice Brandeis said: The right to be alone, the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilised men . . . Let me quote further what he said about our rights as individuals: The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favourable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognised the significance of man's spiritual nature , of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfaction of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone. The Opposition is saying now that the fact that someone, on the basis of the Opposition's charges, has taken upon himself the right to intercept telephone conversations and then makes some of the tapes of those interceptions available five years later, should bring the national Parliament of Australia to the stage of holding an inquiry into the behaviour of a member of the High Court of Australia. The Opposition is asking the Australian people to accept that we should abolish the law on the interception of telephone conversations and that as long as people are able to intercept telephone conversations and bring forward something which they believe is meaty enough, we will take the material seriously. There are very strict laws about the interception of telephone conversations in this country. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is to speak next, ought to be well aware of them. We have conferred on the Australian Federal Police the right to intercept telephone conversations in an attempt to apprehend drug offenders. Even the material that it gets from those interceptions, apart from that relating to drug offences, cannot be used unless the offences being committed bring a gaol sentence of three years or more, regardless of whether the offences are against a Commonwealth law or a State law . So we do not willy-nilly give anybody the right to go around intercepting telephone conversations in this country. We cannot say, as one or two people have said to me: 'I don't care, they can tap my telephone. I have nothing to hide'. No one person in this country has the right to give away the civil liberties of the other 15 million people. If the law says that we are not to intercept telephone conversations everybody should abide by it. That applies especially to members of this Parliament, who serve in public office. The Opposition does not have the discretion about what laws it must abide by but it is saying: 'We do not know whether these things are authentic, we do not know who took them, but they are meaty enough. It might be able to do the Government some damage and we might be able to harangue an old Labor Party person on the High Court, so irrespective of the damage it does and of the relationship between the Parliament and the judiciary we will proceed with this investigation '. As I said earlier, the Government has additional responsibilities. The Opposition is adopting a cavalier attitude in this case. The Opposition talks about whether the material is authentic. Let us look at how the Government has acted since this material was handed over. I draw the attention of honourable members to the material that was printed last week in the Australian newspapers about the ruling of the courts in England regarding the tapping of telephones and the intended publication of the material in the London Daily Mirror. The court prevented the London Daily Mirror from printing the material which had been given to it by an unknown source as a result of illegal telephone tapping. When this material was handed to the Age, it contacted the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and said: 'We will hand it over to you but we will publish it'. It said 'We will not publish names' but, of course, enough people knew the names and these were run around Australia. Within five minutes everybody in Australia was interested and knew the names that were supposedly on the tapes. What the people were not told, of course, was that something like 3,000 telephone conversations were supposedly intercepted and that whilst there are four or five tapes, there are thousands of pages of transcripts which are not backed up by tapes. I do not know, from having listened to all the debate in this Parliament on all the issues over the years, of anybody who has the expertise in this Parliament to prove whether this material is authentic. We had a police investigation. We had Mr Temby give us an opinion. We have set up a task force to look at the material. The task force is using not one but several of the best people available in Australia to prove or disprove the authenticity of the material which was handed to us by the Melbourne Age. The Temby task force will report back to the Government on the measures it thinks ought to take place, whether offences against Commonwealth law or New South Wales law have been committed, and whether it can direct investigations as to who might have carried out those tappings. We are carrying out the task in a completely proper way. It seems to me that that is the kernel of the Opposition' s frustration. Because we have done everything properly honourable members opposite do not have the patience to wait for the Temby task force to make its report. What is the Senate committee to do about authenticity? It will probably ask Mr Temby: 'Will you please tell us what you have found out about these matters?'. What protection will it have? Who will be the witnesses? Is it intended that a member of the High Court will be called before a Senate committee, asked whether he had a telephone conversation five years ago with a certain person and whether he said this or that? Who in this Parliament can tell me what he said on the telephone five years ago? Some honourable members sitting opposite-this applies to me also-could not say what they said in a telephone conversation five days ago. It is absolutely ridiculous. The charges that the Opposition is making in the pursuit of bringing about some sort of embarrassment to the Government fall very badly with the protection of civil liberties in this country. The Opposition said that this investigation is absolutely inevitable, that we have to carry it out because we are here to protect the rights of the Parliament. The Government is here to protect the rights of the Parliament. I say to the Leader of the Opposition-I speak on behalf of this side of the House-that I am quite happy for the people of Australia to determine who is right. Is it those who sit opposite and give approval to the illegal interception of telephone conversations or those of us on this side of the House who say that people must abide by the law? The law states that one is committing an offence, the penalty for which is several years in gaol, if one carries out such a practice. I think the newspapers of this country ought to look at the United Kingdom judgment of last week. That judgment said that it is not always the case that the interests of the newspapers are the interests of the people. In this case the Leader of the Opposition said that the material handed to the newspaper could have quite easily been handed to the police or to the jockey club, which was the organisation concerned in the allegations contained in the tapes. Why were these tapes not handed to the Australian Federal Police to be investigated before they were brandished all over Australia in order that we could pursue one or two individuals and have them half destroyed before there was any proper inquiry at all? Are we going to stand in this Parliament in 1984 to throw all these things up in the air because we think it is good fun? Does the Leader of the Opposition offer himself as a person who is prepared to have his telephone tapped all the time? Mr Peacock —As a matter of fact I have, this year. Mr YOUNG —I would like to have had it done last year; it might have been more interesting on some of these things. Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition , because he is such a fool, that it is not his right to give up something which this Parliament and this country have determined is breaking the law if somebody carries it out. It is not the right of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) or any other honourable member in this House. If Opposition members want to change the law to make it easier for people to tap telephones they should get up and move amendments to the legislation and see what the people of Australia say about that. Those people who encourage the tapping of telephones and the pursuit of people who may be involved in the allegations that are contained in those telephone taps are doing themselves and their country a grave injustice. This is not happening only in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Government has now promised the Parliament, because of the actions of the House of Lords, to tighten up the laws on telephone interception because it says that too much of it is going on in the United Kingdom. We are watching the United Kingdom go one way while these fools in the Opposition want to go another way. I tell the Leader of the Opposition that I am quite happy to have that tested. If he wants to make a big issue at any future election of the fact that he will open up the books to let people intercept telephones he can state that. We will be telling the people that we have very specific laws prescribing who can tap telephones and who cannot and those laws are very strict. If people break those laws they are likely to go to gaol. That is what the Premier of New South Wales has said and that is why he is entitled to say it. Opposition members are on an exercise which they think is good for them because they are in opposition. They have promised the people of Australia that they will lift their game when they come back. I can tell them that they are embarking on an exercise which is an affront to the civil liberties of this country, which will be condemned by any person who gets involved in this debate. All the things for which Opposition members stand will be condemned. This is not , as has been suggested by Opposition members, a black and white issue in setting up a committee and letting the Parliament go willy-nilly into some mad investigation, calling people before it, before any of the material is authenticated. That is what members of the Opposition are asking for. The Government has a far greater responsibility to the people of Australia. This is one of the very major reasons that we will stay in office for a long time. We will not be part of the joint committee which heads down the road-as the Leader of the Opposition has said-of section 72 of the Constitution. Absolutely no evidence was given to us by the police report, by Temby or by Gaudron on the so- called behaviour of the judge that would bring about the setting up of this committee. The Government refutes the idea that a committee ought to be established by the joint Houses of the Parliament. No committee should be established in the Parliament at all, not just in the House of Representatives but in the Senate as well. If the tapes are authentic the first culprits ought to be those people who intercepted the phone calls and committed the crimes in the first place. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.55) —I think it is supremely ironic that this Opposition and this Parliament should have been lectured about the propriety of people in public office by somebody who, according to one of the most respected judges in this country, could well have endangered the national security of this nation as a member of a Cabinet. I think it is supremely ironic that the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), should come into this House on any debate and lecture anybody on this side of the House about propriety in public office. This debate raises a number of highly significant issues. In the time available to me I would like to go through those issues one by one. It is not an easy matter for this Parliament. It involves very serious considerations of privacy, legality and propriety not only on the part of the judiciary but also on the part of the members of this Parliament. Let me first of all deal with what I can call the legality issue. Both the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Special Minister of State made great play of the fact that these tapes were probably obtained illegally and in breach of the Telecommunications ( Interception) Act. Let me say immediately on my part, and I am sure on the part of everybody in the Opposition, that if people in the course of carrying out what they believed was a public service have breached the law they, like anybody else, have to be dealt with according to the law. There is no argument on our side about that. But what there is an argument on our side about is that even if those tapes were obtained illegally the fact that they were obtained illegally should not be a total estoppel on this Parliament or indeed the law enforcement authorities in New South Wales doing something about the substance of them. To do what the Government and the Premier of New South Wales are claiming ought to happen is the equivalent of somebody asserting that if one illegally intercepts a telephone conversation between two people who plan to rob a bank, one does not go along to tell the police that they are going to rob the bank. That is the inevitable and inescapable logic of what members of the Government are saying on this issue. Let me dispose immediately of this question of the legality issue. Of course, if people have broken the law they should be dealt with in accordance with the law, but that should not totally bind the hands of the authorities either in New South Wales or in the Commonwealth to pursue possible breaches of the law disclosed by the material which has been illegally intercepted and recorded. The second issue is the authenticity issue. I really find it absolutely incredible that at this late stage the Government is still seriously pursuing the authenticity issue. Does anybody seriously believe that the Government does not regard these tapes as substantially authentic; that the New South Wales Government does not regard them as substantially authentic? They are authentic enough for the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to take the unprecedented step of talking to the judge in question to get his version of the events. They are authentic enough for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, a former President of the Law Council of Australia, a reputable lawyer, an Australian Labor Party candidate of respect and repute in Western Australia- Mr Young —This is what this is all about. Mr HOWARD —He is. Some of the Labor Party's candidates are of repute and respect : I have never denied that. He is a person of very considerable repute. But the tapes were so unauthentic that Mr Temby found it necessary to say this: 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 . . . He 'now realises this'. In other words, the Director of Public Prosecutions regarded the material as sufficiently authentic to warn the judge off his association with this person. But that is not the end of the authenticity issue. The tapes were authentic enough to establish a joint task force between the Commonwealth and the State. They are authentic enough not only for the Director of Public Prosecutions but also the Solicitor-General to give opinions. They are authentic enough for the Attorney-General to give a long statement to the Parliament. The coup de grace on the question of authenticity was delivered by the Premier of New South Wales in the wake of the New South Wales election when he said: 'I cannot wait to get my hands on those New South Wales police who taped those conversations'. We do not see Mr Wran rubbing his hands together in anticipation of getting his hands on some of the people who have been responsible for the murder of Donald Mackay. But one sees him rubbing his hands about getting hold of the police who were responsible for the illegal taping of those telephone conversations. The fact of the matter is that the New South Wales Premier has now embarked upon a campaign of vindictiveness, of bullying and hot pursuit towards members of the New South Wales Police Force. I have no truck with members of that force who have broken the law, but I equally have no truck with breaches of the law that may have been disclosed by those people doing something that they may honestly have regarded as a public service. I will come later on in my remarks to the double standards of the Australian Labor Party about the use of improperly taped conversations because not only does the Government not come into this debate with clean hands on other issues but it also does not come into this debate with clean hands on the question of invasion of privacy. The person with the dirtiest hands on that subject is none other than the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke). Let me come to the constitutional issue. From the very beginning, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) quite properly pointed out, we endeavoured to handle this matter in this place and in the Senate with sensitivity and with propriety. The Special Minister of State may laugh as much as he likes but everybody knows that the Opposition has struck a proper balance between, on the one hand, properly pursuing something of public interest and, on the other hand, not willy-nilly branding the names and the reputations of people under the cover of parliamentary privilege. Of course, mentioning parliamentary privilege and the destruction of reputations probably brings me to the greatest example of double standards displayed by this whole issue; that is, the question of the abuse of parliamentary privilege and the use of the enormous privilege that this place gives to both sides of the House in what we say in this House. One of the constant complaints of the Government in this debate has been that we have abused parliamentary privilege. We hear the Prime Minister in particular during these debates come in and say: 'That miserable Opposition over there, you know what they have done, they have used parliamentary privilege to brand the reputations of honest, decent people'. One of the people who sit on the other side of the chamber and go 'hear, hear' with the loudest voice of all is none other than the person who normally sits in the chair now occupied by a very honourable member of the Government, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). I refer to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the honourable member for Fremantle. There has been no person in the nine years that I have been in this Parliament since 1974 who has been more guilty of reckless indifference to the reputation of honest people under the cover of parliamentary privilege than has the Minister for Finance. Any one of us who sat in the House-and any honourable member who is honest on the other side-during 1982 heard what the honourable member for Fremantle said under the cover of parliamentary privilege about the reputations of honest, decent Australians. They were called crooks, they were called thieves, they were called liars and they were called all manner of things . What does the Prime Minister do about that? He sits there. He says nothing. He associates himself by voting in divisions with what the Minister for Finance has said and, worse than that, when he becomes the Prime Minister of this country he welcomes Mr Dawkins into his Ministry, he takes him into the bosom of the Hawke Cabinet and he says: 'You are one of my mates. I will stand by you, John. I am on your side. Your standards are my standards'. Of course, that is indeed the greatest example of double standards demonstrated by this whole debate. Even more to the point of this debate is the question of the double standards of the Prime Minister regarding the question of privacy. The House will remember that a few weeks ago I reminded the Prime Minister of an occasion when, in the early 1970s, he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and he had a certain view about what responsibilities people had regarding the use of material improperly obtained. I refer to a dispute involving an oil company in which the Prime Minister was involved. On that occasion what the Prime Minister did was to use the Willesee television program to play some improperly obtained tapes. They were not tapes obtained in breach of the Telecommunications ( Interception) Act, but they were nonetheless obtained in a totally unauthorised and improper fashion. The conversations were taped without the knowledge and consent of the people engaged in the conversation. In other words, an eavesdropping exercise was carried on. The Prime Minister felt no reluctance at all when he was President of the ACTU in going on to this television program and saying: 'I want you to hear this material and I want you to know what terrible things have been going on'. Let me read to honourable members the answer that the then President of the ACTU, the now Prime Minister of Australia, said on the question of privacy. He was taxed on this issue and it may well have been that the honourable member for Port Adelaide was speaking the words of Michael Willesee on this particular occasion. There was plenty of righteous indignation about privacy and the rights of man and all those beautiful words that the honourable member for Port Adelaide read out from some American authority. It would warm hearts to know that the honourable member for Port Adelaide is so deeply committed to the question of individual rights. Of course in answer to the question of privacy the Prime Minister said-this is really absolutely instructive of the double standards of this Prime Minister and this Government: . . . if I come into possession of information which shows that that is what they're prepared to do, and that they are prepared to ruin the interests of the Australian people, then I don't regard it . . . let me put it this way: 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-- I repeat: 'it's a duty'- who's got information which will disclose the nature of these people and what they will do to decent Australians-- honourable members can imagine him saying that- then they SHOULD be revealed for the sort of people they are and the perfidious- - honourable members can imagine him saying that- and hypocritical actions that they undertake. So spoke the Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, the President of the ACTU and now the Prime Minister of Australia. Yet we are treated to this sanctimonious lecture from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State about invasions of privacy. Not only are we treated to hypocrisy and sanctimonious lectures from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State on this issue, but of course we now find that the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Wran, and the Prime Minister have apparently got their wires crossed because according to the Federal President of the ALP anybody who uses material obtained in this matter ought to be put in gaol. Where indeed does that leave the Federal President of the ALP and the Prime Minister? The fact is that Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister, has been guilty, once again, of his monumental failing; that is, he has been guilty of double standards. He was prepared to condone an invasion of privacy in what he regarded as the public interest in 1972. He was prepared to argue and defend it on national television but, because it no longer suits his political purposes to do that, what he now does, both himself and through his agents, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State, is come into this Parliament and say: 'When the boot is on the other foot, when it suits me to invoke the principle of privacy, then I am going to go on and do it'. I think that reduces the Prime Minister's role in particular in this issue to a very bad proportion. It demonstrates once again that the Prime Minister is very often guilty on many issues of very great double standards. I support very warmly the stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition. I think this Parliament has the right to have a look at this material. The Constitution says that we have that right. The founding fathers did not want the other judges of the High Court of Australia to have a look at material of this nature. They decided in their wisdom that it ought to be given to the Parliament, and the Hawke Government is frustrating this Parliament from discharging its proper constitutional responsibility. Question put: That the motion (Mr Lionel Bowen's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Cunningham, B. T. Hawker, D. P. M.O'Neil, L. R. T. Cameron, Donald Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-I deal firstly with the background. For some years allegations have been made that officers of Telecom Australia have been corrupted by and give assistance to starting price bookmaking. The Connor inquiry into legalisation of casinos in Victoria heard a number of allegations of corruption in Telecom. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and its counsel assisting have also published broad allegations of corruption in Telecom. There have also been allegations by certain individuals extensively reported in the media to the effect that there are links between Telecom and organised crime. Law enforcement agencies, the Australian Police Ministers Council and Special Prosecutor Redlich in his 1982-83 annual report, have made criticisms of Telecom for doing less than it should to assist in combating SP bookmaking. The Special Prosecutor has also written to me outlining 'certain disturbing matters' arising from further investigations he has conducted. The purpose of this statement is to report on the outcome of investigations of the allegations of corruption and to set out the basis for action in the future by Telecom to more positively assist law enforcement. The allegations made to the Connor inquiry were referred by me to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) for investigation by the Australian Federal Police. The Special Minister of State has advised me that: As a result of a series of interviews and the examination of relevant documents the AFP has reached a tentative conclusion that there is not evidence available which would vindicate in satisfaction of the criminal burden of proof, that there is more than a casual link between organised crime and Telecom. Organised Crime and SP Bookmaking The Government has made it clear that it attaches the highest priority to the struggle against organised crime in Australia. The dimensions of the problem have been revealed by a number of recent reports, particularly those of the Costigan Royal Commission and the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. Illegal bookmaking in itself is a large scale organised crime which provides its operators with large profits. It constitutes tax evasion on a massive scale and is a major source of funds for other aspects of organised crime such as drug dealing. Certainly, the image of the SP bookmaker as the friendly local bloke operating a small business from the pub or club is no longer valid. Illegal bookmaking is obviously very dependent on the telephone system. Mr Connor in his report observed that 'illegal bookmaking, however, is an industry which at the present time is almost entirely conducted by telephone'. It is thus particularly important that the role of Telecom in assisting law enforcement agencies to detect illegal bookmaking be clarified and set on a firmer basis. Telecom has co-operated and continues to co-operate with law enforcement agencies in the detection of illegal bookmaking. It has provided information on request to police and loaned officers to assist police in their investigations. Role of Telecom The prime role of Telecom in the community is to provide an efficient telephone service. Australia has a modern telephone system and use of the telephone has spread well beyond being a luxury item available to few to being a necessity. The very large majority of households possess a telephone; second telephone usage is spreading and a very large number of businesses have needs for multiple telephones, private switchboards, and other modern equipment. Telecom receives a very large number of applications for new and changed services each working day and these must be processed as efficiently as possible. Although Telecom's prime role must be to operate efficiently, this is not to say, however, that Telecom should not have a positive duty to ensure that the telephone system is not being used for illegal purposes. A similar problem arises in a number of government agencies whose facilities are believed to be used by organised crime to assist illegal activities. The Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, drew attention to a number of these areas in his recent annual report and criticised agencies for taking what he described as a narrow view of their responsibilities. In the context of the significance of organised crime and the Government's high priority to its combat, the Government wishes to emphasise that it is part of the responsibilities of all its agencies to take positive steps to ensure that their facilities are not used for illegal purposes and that they provide positive assistance to law enforcement. A narrow view of their responsibilities should not be taken by government agencies. Telecom has indicated that in the light of this clear statement of principle by the Government it will introduce strengthened formal procedures to have its staff report circumstances indicating the use of the telephone network by subscribers for illegal purposes. To establish the basis for Telecom's action, it is proposed to amend the Telecommunications Act to make it clear that Telecom should take positive steps to prevent use of telecommunications services for the commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. Relationship of Telecom and Law Enforcement Agencies A number of steps have been taken to improve liaison between Telecom and law enforcement agencies. The detailed working arrangements and policy guidelines between Telecom and the Australian Federal Police have been reviewed and revised arrangements are in place. The informal arrangements between the State police and Telecom have also been examined but are regarded as satisfactory and need not be formalised. Formal arrangements have been established in each State and at the national level for high level liaison between Telecom, State police and the AFP. Telecom is taking steps to strengthen its internal investigation unit. The unit has a charter to initiate investigations and pursue them to the point where there appear to be substantial grounds for suspicion. At that point, they will be handed to the State police or AFP as appropriate. Law enforcement agencies have criticised some Telecom administrative procedures in that they do not provide adequate information to assist in investigation of illegal activities. Telecom, of course, has based its administrative procedures on what it needs to operate efficiently on a commercial basis. However, following discussions between law enforcement agencies and Telecom, it has been agreed that Telecom will collect some additional information from applicants for telephones and will keep appropriate records for a longer period. Call Record Printers-CRP-Machines Law enforcement agencies have suggested that it would be of considerable value to investigation of organised crime including illegal bookmaking activities for them to be able to use CRP machines. These machines record outgoing numbers dialled by a telephone user but are incapable of listening to or recording any conversation passed during a telephone call. Their use by police could be of considerable assistance in the detection of organised and systematic criminal activities generally, including illegal bookmaking. The Police Ministers Council has requested the Commonwealth to agree to use the CRP machines for this purpose on a number of occasions. The use of such machines does raise questions of the privacy of the telephone system. It is the view of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that use of the CRP machines by other than Telecom does constitute an interception under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act and, unless authorised pursuant to the provisions of that Act, is illegal. While noting that a distinction can be made between an interception which allows the listening into or recording of a conversation and merely recording the number dialled, the Government also notes that privacy issues are involved and any use of CRP machines should be strictly controlled. Noting that Federal and State police forces have urgently recommended that the use of CRP machines be made more available for law enforcement purposes generally, I have asked the Attorney-General to ensure that early consideration be given to this recommendation, and the possible need for amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, as part of the Government's response to the Law Reform Commission's privacy report. Particular aspects, such as the use of CRP only after issue of a warrant and the imposition of a 'sunset' clause on the relevant legislation, would need to be taken into account. Letters from Mr Robert Redlich, Special Prosecutor I have mentioned letters I received from Mr Robert Redlich, the Special Prosecutor, in which he outlined 'certain disturbing matters' he had discovered during further investigation he conducted subsequent to tabling his 1982-83 annual report. Mr Redlich wrote on 17 January broadly outlining these matters and again on 18 January substantiating the issues by detailing case histories. A further letter of 7 March elaborated on two of the case histories. It should be noted at this point that the matters raised by Mr Redlich were not, as reported in the media, allegations of links between organised crime and Telecom and corruption arising therefrom. Rather, the letters set out a number of case histories which indicate policy and administrative practices which, if representative of usual practice, could provide opportunities for criminal elements to corrupt and misuse Telecom, its employees and its facilities. I referred the matters raised in Mr Redlich's letters to the Chairman of Telecom for examination and report to me. Comprehensive reports were subsequently presented to me. The Government has now decided that the Special Minister of State should ask Mr Frank Vincent, QC, to review the matters raised by Mr Redlich in regard to breaches of the laws of the Commonwealth and impropriety or official misconduct by officers of Telecom. From that review, Mr Vincent is to make recommendations for further investigations by police or Telecom and prosecution or disciplinary action. Mr Vincent is asked further to identify appropriate steps that could be taken to ensure that the facilities of Telecom are not used for illegal purposes , positive assistance is provided to law enforcement agencies and the administrative procedures of Telecom are not conducive to misconduct or impropriety. Mr Vincent is to report by 30 June 1984. Conclusion The Government has been seriously concerned at the spread of organised criminal activity including illegal bookmaking and the use of the telephone system for these purposes. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the proper efficiency of Telecom is not impaired and that the measures outlined above do not destroy the basic privacy of the telephone system. We believe that the measures announced in this statement preserve this balance. They reflect the Government's commitment to ensure that adequate resources are directed towards the fight against organised crime. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —by leave-I welcome the statement on Telecom Australia and law enforcement made by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). The further information he gave today in the statement and the announcement he made recently regarding the approval for Mr Vincent to conduct an inquiry into some of the allegations against Telecom are very important. It is of the utmost importance that the continuing allegations concerning Telecom employees, SP bookmakers, other illegal activities, and the lack of co-operation by Telecom management in pursuing these allegations and in assisting Federal or State police et cetera- they are not only allegations, of course, from Mr Redlich's annual report and subsequent letters-be relentlessly pursued so that those who are engaged in illegal activity can be prosecuted, but more particularly so that the good image of Telecom can be completely restored and maintained. I think that is of tremendous importance to the 90,000-odd people who work for Telecom. The Minister stated in both his statement today and in his statement of a couple of weeks ago that Mr Vincent is to investigate and report on the points made by Mr Redlich on 30 June. I presume that-I seek the assurance of the Minister on this-any amendments to any of the Acts, whether it be the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 or other Acts, will be made after 30 June when we will have the benefit of knowing the outcome of Mr Vincent's inquiries. I certainly believe that before any of those amendments are presented to this House, debated and voted on it is imperative that the recommendations of Mr Vincent are made public so that they are known to everyone and there is public confidence that what is being recommended is what is required to stamp out this activity and to maintain the good image of Telecom. However, I wonder whether the action that the Minister announced both two weeks ago and again today would have been taken by the Government if Mr Redlich had not persisted with the three letters following his annual report. He was obviously concerned that no action was being taken by the Government and that certainly there was no change in the attitude of the Telecom management to the recommendations of the report. In my view the leaking of at least one of Mr Redlich's letters has been of tremendous value in seeing that action has been taken. As I said previously, it is important that justice appears to be done as well as being done on behalf of Telecom, which is the largest authority, the largest company, in Australia, with over 90,000 employees. Obviously, amongst 90 ,000 employees there will always be one or two who may not be as honest as the others. But the actions of one or two employees should be no reason for smearing the names of all the employees. I believe that it is better for Telecom to establish and to maintain a good name by pursuing those engaged in illegal activity rather than by trying to cover up. When one considers that since 1963-this is referred to by Mr Redlich in his annual report-which was the time of the Justice Taylor Royal Commission into Improper Practices in the Postmaster-General's Department in Victoria, allegations have come out time after time. There has been inquiry after inquiry. There is the added concern that not only was Justice Taylor referring to improper practices in Victoria at that time but also that Mr Redlich refers to the fact that once again much of this improper practice is still occurring in Victoria. One has to ask what the situation is regarding the Victorian administration of Telecom. As I have said and as the Minister has noted, since the 1963 inquiry there has been the Connor Inquiry into the Legalisation of Casinos in Victoria, the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the Police Ministers' Council and so forth. I am concerned that the terms of reference for the inquiry by Mr Vincent refer only to the Redlich letters, the Redlich allegations and the Redlich concern about lack of action. Surely, if Telecom is to be completely cleared and its good name re-established, the terms of reference for Mr Vincent must be broadened so that the other allegations can also be considered by Mr Vincent and in particular, the recent Connor inquiry and the allegations concerning the Age tapes. Whether the Government likes it or not, the Age tapes will not go away. They will dog the Government until it deals with them properly. I note that the terms of reference for the Vincent inquiry state that he can make recommendations for further investigations after considering the Redlich points. I believe that it is important that Mr Vincent have the power, even if not immediately, to broaden his inquiry to take into account, at the same time as taking into account the Redlich points, the other allegations and that he then be allowed to continue to take up those other allegations when he has made his initial recommendations to the Government. I will give honourable members an example of what I am talking about. An article appearing in the Melbourne Age on 16 March refers to Telecom being involved in the New South Wales police tapes. The article states: The transcripts of New South Wales police tapes given to 'the Age' include references to Telecom employees and links to crime suspects. In one conversation a Telecom employee talked with the secretary of a crime suspect about connecting a telephone 'urgently tonight' in an illegal Sydney casino. The secretary arranged for the Telecom man to be at the premises about 6 .30 p.m. where another crime suspect would be waiting . . . The transcripts reveal that the crime suspect, whose business and home telephones were systematically tapped by police in an extensive operation over several months, told a caller that if he wanted anything 'I've got a bloke in the phone company' . . . Mr Bottom said last night that 15 months ago he gave senior Federal police a copy of the transcripts that detail references to several Telecom employees. Federal police were at that time investigating Telecom matters. It will be of interest to many ordinary Australians to know that Telecom will connect their telephones for them at 6.30 p.m. on the night they request that service, as at the moment they have to wait weeks and sometimes months to get their telephones connected. I am also concerned that the Minister's statement and rumours that have come from Caucus decisions on these matters have already pre-empted possible decisions and recommendations by Mr Vincent. I quote the headlines of certain paragraphs of what I understand is one of the Redlich letters. The headlines read: 'The involvement of Telecom employees in assisting in the commission of illegal activities'; 'The attitude of senior personnel within Telecom'; 'Lack of co-operation by Telecom staff with internal and police investigations'; 'The employment of staff with serious criminal records and their placement in positions of trust'; 'Interference by senior personnel in internal investigations'; 'The improper use of the disciplinary power under section 58 of the Telecommunictions Act'; 'Reduction in the size of the internal investigation unit'; 'Unsatisfactory working guidelines between Telecom and the Australian Federal Police'; 'The absorption of the internal investigation unit into the Australian Federal Police'; 'The CRP machine'; and 'Creation of a Federal offence of using Federal facilities in furtherance of a State crime'. Those are all very heavy and serious points. I hope what the Minister has said today in relation to those points will indicate the point I am making about pre-empting possible recommendations. The first is that one of the harshest criticisms of Telecom has been of its failure to treat urgently and seriously breaches of State laws as distinct from Federal laws. I quote from the Minister's statement: To establish the basis for Telecom's action, it is proposed to amend the Telecommunications Act to make it clear that Telecom should take positive steps to prevent use of telecommunications services for the commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. I realise that there has been uncertainty in the past in relation to what were Telecom's statutory legal responsibilities. But I make it clear that Telecom should take positive steps to prevent the use of telecommunications services for the commission of offences in a State or Territory as well as federally. Is that pre-empting more positive amendments which would require Telecom to treat breaches of State or Territory laws on the same basis as Federal laws? I put that point quite seriously. Will the easier option be taken-that decision has already been made-that would not give Telecom the same requirements? After all, Telecom is the national telecommunications carrier for Australia. It must have equal responsibility for the conduct of the laws of the States of Australia as it does for Commonwealth laws. In regard to the possibility of pre-empting with a softer option, I refer to Mr Redlich. His last recommendation is the 'Creation of a Federal offence of using Federal facilities in furtherance of a State crime'. In other words, he recommends amending the legislation to create a situation in Australia similar to that in the United States, where it is a Federal offence-and therefore completely within the responsibilities of Telecom-to be involved in any way in using Federal facilities in furtherance of committing a State offence. That recommendation was made by the Special Prosecutor. Does that mean, with regard to the Minister's statement today, that consideration by Mr Vincent has already been pre-empted? I hope not. The second point concerns call record printers. The Minister noted that there has been pressure for some time from the Police Ministers Council to allow police to use these devices which record telephone numbers but not the actual conversation. The Minister in his statement today made it clear that he has not closed off the possibility of amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception ) Act to allow this to happen. I think he said that the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) has been asked to investigate and report on this matter. But I am worried once again by what could happen if Mr Vincent's recommendation is followed through, having regard to two quotations. The first comes from the annual report of the Special Prosecutor. He referred to the use of CRP recorders as a way of tracking down SP bookmakers, and stated: It is of interest that in the United States, where there the law also prohibits interception of communications passing over telecommunications systems, it has been held by the United States Court of Appeal, in two separate challenges to the use of such devices, that they do not constitute an interception of communications within the meaning of the United States criminal code. Furthermore, the use of these devices was held to be constitutional in that they did not involve any contravention of the right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search embodied in the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There is a general acceptance that the United States is just as concerned about the rights of individuals as we are in Australia. Mr Redlich referred to the CRP machine as one of the major points in his submission. I quote from that document : I appreciate that certain proposed broad amendments to that legislation- that is, the Telecommunications (Interception) Act- were recently rejected by caucus in favour of a very narrow amendment. However the amendments that I proposed in my report are very narrow and certainly much narrower than those originally proposed by the Attorney-General. That adds to my concern, the concern of the Opposition and, I believe, of the public generally, that once again because of a Caucus decision-if this information is correct-already anything that Mr Vincent may recommend may have already been pre-empted by decisions which will not allow those recommendations to be accepted. The final point I make on this question of how valuable the recommendations are and how much of the recommendations the Government will be able to take up-because of the fact that it has already made announcements or hinted in certain directions-concerns internal investigation, the Federal Police and Telecom. It has been stated-I think the Minister stated it in his statement today-that Telecom is to strengthen its investigation unit. That is certainly welcome because it is obviously important. In one of the Redlich letters, point no. 7, 'Reduction in the size of the internal investigation unit', states: The problems I have adverted to are aggravated, at least in Victoria, (I am unaware of the situation in other States) by the depletion of the internal investigation unit. In 1981 there were twenty-one internal investigators within Telecom Victoria. Today I understand that there are approximately eleven. These investigators are responsible not only for investigating criminal conduct associated with Telecom, but they are also required to investigate all civil claims made against the Commission. The announcement which has been made of arrangements between the Federal Police and the internal investigators means, presumably, that it is impossible for one of the Redlich recommendations to be seriously considered because it has already been pre-empted; that is, 'the absorption of the internal investigation unit into the Australian Federal Police'. The document continues: I have little doubt that the ideal resolution of a number of these issues is the absorption of that part of the internal investigation unit which conducts criminal investigations into the Australian Federal Police as was originally intended would occur. I said as much in my annual report . . . Suitable members of the internal investigation unit could be transferred to the Australian Federal Police and the balance remain to conduct civil claims investigations. The argument that criminal activities be investigated by police and not by public servants is overwhelming. That would appear to me to be a very good solution so that justice would appear to be done as well as being done, by having the Federal Police, as the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) supports, in their own right working in relation to these illegal activities rather than being there somewhere along the line after Telecom's own internal investigators. Does that mean that one of the major recommendations of Mr Redlich cannot even be seriously considered by Mr Vincent because it has been pre-empted? I now make the point that Telecom was not the only authority or industry mentioned in the Redlich report. The Minister refers to that matter in his speech. He states: In the context of the significance of organised crime and the Government's high priority to its combat, the Government wishes to emphasise that it is part of the responsibilities of all its agencies to take positive steps to ensure that their facilities are not used for illegal purposes and that they provide positive assistance to law enforcement. A narrow view of their responsibilities should not be taken by Government agencies. So, we have Telecom under the spotlight at present. I would hope-and the Minister has made the point-that whoever else is recommended in this report is similarly required to clean up, to justify their procedures-and that is not just government authorities. Banks, for example, are mentioned in this report. One would hope that they have got the message and are motivated enough to be cleaning up the weaknesses in their own systems themselves. It is one thing for all of us to point to Telecom; if we are completely serious as a community, it is another thing to stop at Telecom without looking at the others as well. Where it is not a government authority, it is up to the banks, or agencies or whoever it may be in private industry to clean up themselves. I appeal to the Minister not to pre-empt any of the recommendations that Mr Vincent may make in consideration of Mr Redlich's points, to allow the investigation to be broad enough to cover all the allegations-if not in the first round, at least in the second round-and to allow public scrutiny of the recommendations before any amendments are made to any of the relevant Acts. [COGNATE BILL: SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(5.52) —in reply-In closing the debate on these Bills, before we move into Committee to deal with the amendments which have been foreshadowed by the Opposition, I should like to thank all honourable members of the Parliament for their contribution to the debate. Members from the Opposition side, particularly members from country electorates, contributed to the debate, and on the Government side I was once again very thankful to have contributions from honourable members from particularly the Communications Sub-Committee who have shown such tremendous interest in this legislation. I should like to deal firstly with some of the matters raised specifically by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). They will be raised in more detail by him later in Committee. It seems to me that there are five particular issues to which the honourable member for Murray adverted in the debate. The first issue was the need for any Telecom Australia subsidiary to be genuinely commercial, and that, of course, relates to the right of Telecom to establish subsidiary organisations. The second point was the agreement that Aussat be prevented from operating a public switched telephone and data service and the confirmation of Telecom as the monopoly public switched telecommunications provider for Australia. We on this side of the House were delighted to hear such a statement from the shadow spokesman for communications. Thirdly, there appeared to be, however, in the minds of those opposite, as expressed by the honourable member for Murray, some concern that Telecom is unnecessarily protected and pandered to in this legislation because, in the Opposition's view, certain unions exerted power over this Government. I shall deal with that matter , as with the others, in some detail later. Fourthly, the honourable member for Murray also claimed that the Government had tried to forget its obligation to provide through Aussat a free television and radio service, commercially, for people in remote areas. Fifthly, the Opposition still considers that Aussat should be a public company with 49 per cent private shareholding with a majority of government ownership, but it should be noted that the Opposition's proposed amendment does not-although it may have been intended to do so-limit private ownership to 49 per cent. In respect of the first matter, the need for Telecom to be genuinely commercial -that is, the subsidiaries to be established under the Act-I point out that under the arrangements each subsidiary or joint venture proposed to be set up by Telecom will have to satisfy stringent requirements. Cabinet approval would be required in each case, financing arrangements would be subject to ministerial oversight, and borrowing would be subject to Loan Council approval. These measures are designed to ensure that subsidiaries are not set up for unauthorised or frivolous purposes and to further ensure that the Government at all times maintains control over Telecom's activities in relation to the setting up of subsidiaries. Any subsidiary set up would be subject to the usual commercial conditions applying to similar companies in the private sector. There will be no special or preferential treatment. Telecom subsidiaries would be subject to all Commonwealth and State laws relating to taxation, and Telecom will not be permitted to subsidise the operation of subsidiaries from revenues provided for the public switched network or by the public switched network. Any subsidiaries set up will operate as distinct entities, separate and apart from Telecom, and will not be permitted to use Telecom's facilities or resources to gain unfair competitive advantage over private companies providing similar services. I think that that meets the genuine concerns expressed by the Opposition about this matter. Further, I should like to make it clear that profit sharing arrangements in respect of the operation of joint ventures and subsidiaries will be subject to government scrutiny. Where Telecom is a shareholder or a partner in a joint venture or partnership, Telecom would be entitled to receive dividend payments in accordance with relevant provisions governing dividend distribution or profit sharing. This in turn will ensure that the services provided under such arrangements will be genuinely commercial in character. The second matter raised by the Opposition related to the question of Aussat being prevented from operating a public switched telephone and data service and the confirmation of the monopoly position of Telecom. This leads me to a matter of some concern which was raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), a government member. He expressed considerable concern. The honourable member for the Northern Territory disagrees with the interpretation of clause 13 contained in the explanatory memorandum, and I think that it is probably necessary for him again to look at the purpose of that clause and the following clause, clause 14. That is simply to prevent the setting up of a rival service which would bear some likeness to the publicly owned telephony and data network, the public switched network. As far as domestic telephony data traffic is concerned, there is only one common carrier, and that is Telecom. It has always been the objective of the Government to preserve this, and this is why these clauses are in the Bill. In Australia there is only one public switched network. Therefore, the concerns expressed by the honourable member for the Northern Territory about the growth of private networks, while possibly valid in theory, do not in fact have any relevance to the provisions in clause 13. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is correct in saying that clause 13 prevents Aussat from competing with Telecom in common carrier-like functions, but he did not appear to appreciate that the Bill will allow Aussat to compete in a very limited way by offering private communications services generally complementing those offered by Telecom. Telecom's participation with Aussat will ensure that severe competition with the public switched network is not allowed and we understand, and have been assured over and over again, that Telecom is quite relaxed about such limited competition as might occur, particularly given the dubious economics of running private networks and the availability of satellite transponder space. That being the case, there should be no worries about the cross-subsidisation aspect which was, of course, the other matter which caused the honourable member for the Northern Territory considerable concern. Of course, that is understandable because, as I indicated earlier, other than some with a particular interest in this area, many of the speakers in this debate are representatives of country electorates. The question of cross-subsidisation being affected was a matter about which the honourable member for the Northern Territory obviously had considerable concern. As I have indicated, I do not see why he has any worries on that point. After all, the great bulk of Telecom's revenue comes from its trunk telephone traffic, that is, traffic carried pursuant to its role as the national common carrier. The Satellite Communications Bill denies Aussat a role as a common carrier in respect of public switched telephone services and public switched data services. I refer, of course, to clause 13 of the Bill. Other provisions in the Bill, clauses 16(2) and 17(1), constrain Aussat in respect of resale of lease capacity and the establishment of networks that would constitute third party traffic. Within those constraints Aussat's customers will be permitted to operate their own earth stations for both up-link and down-link purposes, and it is expected that the major broadcasters will constitute the majority of users of satellite facilities. Other customers could include major banking corporations and major Press agencies. In the context of Telecom's overall revenues, the diversion of revenues from non-broadcasting users is very small and would have a minimal impact on Telecom's ability to continue its cross -subsidisation of rural and remote subscribers. It should also be noted on this point that much of the traffic to be carried by Aussat for the non-broadcasting users will constitute new traffic; that is, the satellite is expected to generate significant increases in communications traffic. Both Aussat and Telecom are servicing a high growth market. It is also extremely likely that major users of communications facilities will require the design of a mix of Telecom and Aussat facilities in order to take maximum advantage of the flexibility that the two systems offer as an integrated service and to have the added security that it is available in conducting communications traffic. The proposed 25 per cent Telecom shareholding in Aussat recognises this mix of facilities in an overall policy sense; that is, at the Aussat board levels policies can be debated and agreed in recognition of the practical integration of the facilities available from the two organisations. Finally on this point, it should be noted that, to the extent that Aussat is a profitable enterprise, Telecom will of course derive a 25 per cent dividend payment. In other words, Telecom will be in a position to share in revenues from profitable satellite operations that can be applied to cross-subsidisation of rural and remote subscribers. I hope that that allays the fears of the honourable member for the Northern Territory on that point. While it is not directly related to the matters raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory and while we are dealing with common carriers, I would also like to refer just for clarity to another matter. As indicated in my second reading speech, the provision of satellite facilities for use in neighbouring regions does not authorise Aussat to provide services of the type currently provided by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for communications between Australia and other countries. It is not empowered to compete with Australia's international common carrier, OTC. The third matter which the honourable member for Murray referred to as causing him some concern was the view I indicated earlier that there seemed to be some unnecessary protection of Telecom and that that seemed to be related to a view that the Government had given into pressure from unions. It ought to be made clear at this stage-certainly the honourable member for Murray would be aware of this, although some other Opposition members might not be-that this Government rejected the recommendations of the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunications Services in Australia and confirmed the role of Telecom as the common carrier. The purpose of this Bill is to make this position clear. It is not a matter of pandering to unions on the issue as there is no disagreement between the Government and the unions referred to. The issue here is that Telecom remains the common carrier. That is not a matter about which there is any disagreement between the Government and the unions and fortunately, on the basis of some of the comments made in this debate, it does not seem any longer to be a matter of any great disagreement from the Opposition. So it is not a matter of pressure from unions because the views of the Government and the unions on this matter are exactly the same. There is some difficulty, I think, in those opposite saying that they are not opposed to Aussat being prevented from operating a public switched telephone and data service and then expressing some strange concerns that this legislation is in effect over-protecting the role of Telecom as the monopoly public switched telecommunciations provider, which was the expression used by the honourable member for Murray. Unfortunately, we cannot have it both ways. If that protection is to be given to Telecom, as it will be under this Government, it is necessary to have the legislative framework which is being put in place here. That leads me to the issue of third party use or in fact more correctly in this case, no third party use. The key words in respect of this very important issue are in clause 17(1) which states: Subject to the regulations, a person, other than Aussat or an eligible person, shall not use a facility in an Aussat satellite for the purpose of carrying on a business of providing facilities for telecommunication between other persons. Then the eligible persons are defined in the Bill as the Commission-Telecom-the Australian Postal Commission, the Overseas Telecommunciations Commission or a person declared by the regulations to be an eligible person. A person is thus not prohibited under the clause if the use is not in the course of a business of providing telecommunciations facilities. For example, subscribers to an information service who can provide and retrieve information would not be acting contrary to the clause as the object intended would be not a telecommunciations service but an information provision service. The basic objective of this provision is to give substance to the overall objective of the Bill, expressed in clause 7 as being an intention that Telecom's system and the additional services provided by Aussat together provide Australia's national telecommunciations network and thus provide that restrictions on satellite usage be consistent with those applying to Telecom's terrestrial services. Section 92 of the Telecommunications Act at this stage, of course, precludes third party trafficking in Telecom's services except in accordance with Telecom' s permission in section 13 or the by-law which preclude third party traffic without Telecom approval except in the case of communications within a common interest group over a system provided by Telecom. Section 94 precludes private services except as provided in section 94(2) which covers government-provided transport and broadcasting services, licensed radio communications and broadcasting services and private communications within the premises of a person . Clause 17(1) of this Bill adopts the same basic position but allows for exception by regulation. This ensures that the Government, subject to review in Parliament, can regulate the third party policy adopted by Aussat and can examine proposed exceptions to ensure a consistent approach. In summary, section 17 provides flexibility for the Government on the issue of so-called third party traffic. By regulation the Government may identify a person additional to the existing common carriers who might be exempted from the provisions of the prohibition. However, I wish to make it clear that the Government's present policy is very clear on this point. I cannot currently conceive of circumstances which would see the Government permitting any exception at all from this section other than, of course, the named authorities- Telecom, Australia Post, and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. Certainly the Government does not propose to permit third party carriage by private organisations. The other matter raised by the Opposition was the allegation that the Government had forgotten its obligation to provide through Aussat a free television and radio service for people in remote areas. This is not the case. Services to remote areas have not been forgotten. In this instance I am referring, of course, as was the honourable member for Murray, to commercial services. The Government announced its intention to consider a policy regarding broadcasting services to remote areas in 1984. In that statement it was made clear, and I repeat what was said in the statement, that every Australian will have at least one commercial television service potentially available and many will have two or three potentially available. It means just that. Although the fine detail of how it is to be done has not been announced, the Government's intention is to ensure that any Australian will be able to have access to one commercial television service. This minimal level of service would be available to Australians living in single isolated homesteads or in the most remote areas. In regional areas, that is, the 36 country television areas which exist at present, at least one service and sometimes two will be available through the mechanism of supplementary licences. At some future date it may even be possible to have two supplementary licences, making a total of three commercial services. (Extension of time granted) At some future date it may be possible to introduce those three commercial services and, as indicated, in the major metropolitan areas viewers have up to three commercial services available. I think it is also worth noting that at this stage, and it is an important and significant development, 36 of the 36, that is, the absolute total of regional licensees, have expressed interest in supplementary licences. The final matter which I think in summary should be dealt with because it is obviously of some concern to the Opposition is that the Opposition still considers that Aussat should be a company with 49 per cent private shareholding and a majority of government ownership. But, as I indicated earlier, it should be noted that the proposed amendment does not limit private ownership to 49 per cent. It is at this point that we probably must concede that there is a total divergence of view between the Government and the Opposition. We on this side of the House, as the Government, have made a decision that Aussat will remain entirely a government enterprise with a 25 per cent shareholding by Telecom. That 25 per cent shareholding by Telecom represents a strategic interest in Aussat, which will enable Telecom to propose up to three directors for appointment to an Aussat board of 13. Telecom would therefore have the opportunity to contribute to Aussat's operational policies at a board level. Telecom's shareholding also provides for a more effective integration of the satellite system and the terrestrial system, avoiding possible future demarcation issues. That is the essence of the Government's decision to attempt to establish an integrated telecommunications system. It has been our view that to have that integrated telecommunications system we must have both of these organisations working together. We are confident, particularly having regard to the interest which Telecom now has or will have in Aussat, that that aim will be achieved. The closer development of Telecom will facilitate exchange of personnel which could prove particularly useful to Telecom in gaining hands-on experience with satellite technology. It has been indicated, I think to all members of the Parliament who have been interested to discuss the matter, and certainly that applies to the honourable member for Murray, that the Aussat Board is more than happy with the current arrangement and with the involvement of Telecom on that Board. The Chairman of Aussat, Mr David Hoare, strongly favours Telecom's involvement through shareholding. The Managing Director of Telecom, who is already a director of Aussat, has made a very effective input into the Board's deliberations even at this early stage. That, I think, covers most of the matters of concern which were raised by the Opposition, being those five areas which I have attempted to answer in summary at this stage and the particular problem which was raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory in relation to section 13 and the issue of cross-subsidisation. I think they are the matters which will be adverted to by the honourable member for Murray when the amendments are moved, and they can be dealt with in the Committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 7-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 8 (Obligations of Directors of Aussat). Mr LLOYD(Murray)(6.18) —I move: (1) Clause 8, page 3, at the end of sub-clause (1) add the following paragraphs : '(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.'. The amendment concerns the obligations of directors of Aussat. First of all I commend the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for a very comprehensive summary of the debate that took place almost two weeks ago. It is slightly unreal after a delay of two weeks to move back into the debate, but he certainly put forward the arguments from the Government's point of view. On the point of obligations of directors of Aussat, the Opposition feels that the fourth criterion, that is, those things that the directors of Aussat should take into account as far as practicable to meet the requirements for the use of a satellite, is very important. The Government has deleted the fourth criterion which we believed in government and believe in opposition was of equal importance. Clause 8 refers to air navigation facilities, to the requirements of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for the provision of television and broadcasting services to remote areas and to the provision by Telecom of telephonic services in remote areas and emergency services. Our amendment proposes fourth and fifth criteria, as we distinguish between radio and television, being a commercial television service for people in remote communities and dwellings in Australia and a commercial broadcasting service for people in remote communities and dwellings in Australia. The point here is that members of the Opposition believe, and when we were in government we were putting into practice our belief, that it is the right of every Australian to have and not potentially have-this is the distinction between ourselves and the Government-not just an ABC radio and television service but a free commercial radio and television service when those satellites go up. Then with the introduction of RSTV all Australians will have a third program choice, and that is pay television. Aussat is the way to achieve the right for all Australians, particularly those in remote areas, to have two types of television and radio services, and that is a commercial service and an ABC service. The whole basis of the original planning of Aussat, the domestic satellite, was for that purpose. When we were in government we were well advanced towards implementing that policy. Honourable members will recall that there were going to be four zones with the high powered transponders on the second satellite, or the mix between the two satellites on spot beam to cover Australia with a free commercial service. The Government, with its transponder decision and its reference on satellite program services to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, has basically made it impossible for that free commercial television service at least to be provided in the cheapest and simplest way possible; cheap in the sense of those receiving because of the equipment required and simple in the sense that one could go straight ahead with it. The Government, in my understanding, during the last Federal election said that that was its policy too. Yet all we have heard today is that it will be potentially possible for these people to have it. I think we need more from the Government than that. It should explain its position. If something is really going to happen, as distinct from potentially going to happen, how is it going to happen? Will it be by using the third satellite and the high powered transponders on that satellite if it goes up safely in 1987 or whatever year, to allow decoders for certain areas but not for other areas with all the problems of additional cost and pressure with no coding of those national signals going out for the networks, or for allowing general direct broadcasting? If it is for allowing general direct broadcasting, which would certainly provide three signals to everybody but at considerable cost because of the fact that they are on national beam rather than spot beam, I think the Government should be honest and say to all those regional television stations in Australia what it is going to do and inform them of their forthcoming bankruptcy as a result. All those Labor members who represent regional areas want to be watching that very carefully. At present my understanding from the commercial television industry is that the Government is applying pressure particularly to the regional television stations to come up with something to save the Government from its own bad decision so that it can offer this free commercial service to people in remote areas. I think it is completely unfair for a government, after making it particularly difficult, costly and virtually impossible for such a service to be provided, then to put the pressure on regional television and say: 'You have to save us from our own mistakes'. The purpose of the amendment which I have moved is to keep before this Government and the people of Australia the original intention and purpose of Aussat and to see that the promises to the people in the remote areas of Australia are carried out. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(6.25) —The amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) basically attempts to put into the legislation a commercial television consortium made up of the commercial networks which the previous Government, of which he was a member, found it was unable to bring together. This consortium idea involved getting the regional and the major networks together to form a commercial enterprise to use the second satellite to beam television to the outback. That idea will not work. As I have already stated, the previous Government failed to bring that consortium together, yet members of the Opposition bring that matter before this House tonight. The former Minister for Communications, Mr Brown, who is now not in this House but rather is looking for a seat to come back in, found it virtually impossible. This was one of the former Government's brainwaves. In any large consortium such as this, which could have somewhere between 30 and 50 members when we take into account the considerable amount of television stations involved, we only need one small break in the chain for the whole idea to collapse. The honourable member for Murray suggested that we should be putting forward an idea that gave the outback free commercial television. One of the ideas put forward to the Government and I believe it was probably put forward to the previous Government was an idea from Television Australia Satellite Systems Ltd that, whilst very good in some parts, commenting purely on the free television area, it was not free television but a radiated subscription television-pay television service-to everyone in the outback. It certainly gave them a commercial network but it was an RSTV pay television system. There are various means by which the Government can give free television to the outback areas. All those ideas have been discussed by the Government. We have put certain proposals to sections of the industry. The relationship between the Government and the regional stations is extremely good. I believe that the vast majority of the regional stations are working very well with the Government and are attempting to bring forward a proposal that we would like to see implemented. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has already assured the House that the legislation before the House and Government policy on top of that mean that everyone in Australia will have access to at least one commercial station. That is a fairly clear statement. The Minister made that statement very clearly in his speech when he was rounding off the debate. The consortium idea put before us is a rehash of something that the previous Government really did not get off the ground because of the great difficulties involved. I do not believe it is appropriate also to tie up so many of the transponders on the second satellite purely for the use of the commercial consortium idea which basically is what the addition of paragraphs (d) and (e) to clause 8 would do. The Government rejects the amendment put forward for the reasons I have articulated. The Government, through the Minister, has placed very clear policy down in regard to the use of Aussat and the satellite and transponder use. I believe we will see that come to fruition over the coming months when we most definitely will have before us a system where, as the Minister has said tonight, everyone in Australia, apart from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, will have at least one commercial station to be able to choose from in regard to the commercial network and the ABC. For all those reasons and because of the policy statements put forward by the Government, which are very clear-at least we have at last seen a government that is heading in a definite direction in regard to communications-we on this side of the House will be rejecting this amendment as an already failed idea that was floated by the previous Government. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(8.00) —I rise to make a few points in relation to the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition during this debate. As has been pointed out, this amendment is supposedly to remind us that the Government has some responsibility to provide commercial television and commercial broadcasting . The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) explained in his reply to the second reading debate that the Government has recognised its responsibility; it has indicated that it will ensure that people can receive commercial television in those areas which currently do not receive it. The Government is not prepared to put itself in a position of placing Aussat Pty Ltd with a specific requirement to provide commercial television. Mr Fisher —Why not? Mr SAUNDERSON —Because it places commercial television and commercial broadcasting in a privileged position above the rest of private industry. The Government has said that Aussat is available for commercial broadcasters if they wish to place before Aussat commercial ventures which are competitive. I point out that at the moment in Australia approximately 700,000 people do not receive commercial television, but at least 400,000 of those people currently receive the Australian Broadcasting Corporation service. Most of those people receive their ABC service by land-lines. That really indicates that the regional television stations in many of those areas could in fact be providing television to those people today; they simply have chosen not to perform in that area. It was suggested that the previous Government was virtually at a stage where it had all its legislation and ideas ready. It is a pity that that was not the case because it might have saved us some time in having to go through quite a lengthy exercise in determining what should be done. The proposition that is being put forward, that we could have some sort of consortium providing broadcasting, indicates that the Opposition has not come to grips with the real problems with the use of the satellite. In fact, during the meeting of the Caucus sub- committee which looked at the uses of a satellite, in particular broadcasting facilities, it became quite evident that there were no broadcasters who were prepared to provide free television for the regional areas. What they were interested in, particularly the major networks, was gaining total control of the satellite system, which would eliminate all opposition, both regional and the other major suppliers of television programming. In fact, when we pointed out to them that it would appear on the surface preferable for them to operate as a consortium, not just in the providing of services over a satellite but for instance in the purchasing of programs, the response from one of the leading directors of the major networks was: 'Well, we tried operating together, but we found that because we are all rogues we could not do it.' That really is the situation. None of the major networks are in fact interested in working together ; they are simply interested in eliminating each other. They are not interested in providing services for the outback or the regional areas that do not have it; they are simply interested in maximising the profits by eliminating regional stations and taking over themselves. The steps the Government has taken over the last 12 months have shown that we are committed to implementing a system in Australia which will ensure that all Australians have access but not to the same extent; a certain few will have greater privileges than they deserve. Firstly, the areas in which we have moved will ensure that the regional television stations are given the greatest opportunity to expand their areas and to come forward with plans which will complete television broadcasting in the areas that currently do not have commercial television services. They have been given the first options. The second alternative will then be looked at as to how any of those areas that are left can be taken care of. But the Government has in fact done everything it can to ensure that what we have come up with is the best alternative. I do not believe the amendment put forward by the Opposition are worthy of support. It is simply an attempt to provide a privileged position to a certain section of private enterprise at the expense of others who have just as great a need for access to the satellite system. This perhaps shows that members of the Opposition are not really fair dinkum in their amendments. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), when he was speaking to the second reading, said: 'This legislation, although not identical to what the coalition Government would have introduced, is nevertheless substantially the same'. The Opposition amendment shows that the Opposition is trying to provide something for which there is really no need. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(8.06) —The purpose of the Opposition's amendment is to return to the old Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service II proposal, which had been made on a number of occasions by the previous Government, and which involved having a commercial service on a zonal beam using the 430 watt transponders on the second satellite. The problem with that proposal is that no one that the communications sub-committee of the Caucus spoke to wanted to have anything to do with it. The sorts of people we spoke to were people involved with the large networks, the regional stations and all sorts of other operators. Nobody wanted to have anything to do with it simply because it does not pay to run such a service which relies on advertising to pay for it. If we are catering for only those people in the bush and relying on those people to support the service there are not enough people in that position to justify the enormous expense of hiring four transponders on the satellite to provide the service to cover that area. That does not mean to say that the people in the bush will not get commercial television; the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has already made it very clear tonight that they will. The important thing is to make sure that in providing commercial television to the people in the bush, firstly, they get the best service available and they get a real choice in the programs that are available. I know that one of the concerns amongst the people in my electorate who get television is to get access to national sporting events. That is a very big issue. If we went ahead and set up the HACBSS II service I suggest it is quite unlikely that that service would be able to prise the exclusive rights for these major national sporting events away from the existing network. From the point of view of the people in the bush, the best position for those who want to get sporting coverage is to have access to the larger networks. But in doing that we certainly do not want to wipe out the existing regional stations. That is why the Government has proposed that the regional stations be given the option of expanding their existing area of service. The Minister has indicated tonight that all of the 32 regional networks have indicated that they will expand their service. I understand that in the Northern Territory Channel 8 in Darwin has indicated an interest to expand its services through Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs, and perhaps further afield with translators if necessary. That will still leave people in the more remote areas of the Northern Territory without a service through Channel 8. But there are other options which will allow those people to have access to commercial television. At present about 700,000 people receive only Australian Broadcasting Corporation television and do not receive a commercial television service. About 300,000 people will receive nothing. It is estimated that with the expansion of the regional network 80 per cent of the 700,000 people who either get Australian Broadcasting Corporation television or nothing will get a commercial service. Mr Cadman —You have sold the country out. Mr REEVES —We have not sold the country out. What we are doing steadily and with due thought is providing a service that the people in the country want. If honourable members of the Opposition had jumped in and provided HACBSS II they would not have given the people the sporting coverage of national sporting events or the choice of programs which they were screaming for. The Opposition would have found that if it had jumped in and done it that way, the service would not have been what the people in the bush wanted. What these people want is not only access but also choice. It is not unreasonable that we should proceed cautiously and carefully in order to come to a decision that meets the people's needs. That is what we are doing. That is what the Minister for Communications has indicated he is doing by this process of first inviting the regionals to indicate their interest-as we have- and then to consider the other options available. I was referring to the 700,000 people who have not got the service at present. Some 80 per cent of those will be covered by the expansion of the existing regional network. That will ensure that the existing regionals will continue to exist-I suggest continue to thrive-with the expansion of their service. We are not going to wipe out the regionals as was suggested a bit earlier on tonight. What we are going to do is to give the option to expand the service thus providing a service to all the people who have not been getting such a service for all these years. I suppose the question should be asked as to why they have not been getting this service for years. I understand the regionals are now accepting the responsibility that they have to provide this service. Perhaps the only people not co-operating as much as they should are the large networks in the cities. That still leaves about 140,000 to 150,000 to be serviced. One of the options that has to be considered if that number of people is left is the provision to those people of decoders free of charge. At present that 700,000 group is made up of communities of about 900 people and less. For example, a number of Aboriginal communities and small mining town communities in the Northern Territory go to make up that total 700,000. There are about 260 pastoral properties in the Northern Territory, about 80 per cent of which have people living on them. In terms of actual sites in the Northern Territory which would need a receiver I would estimate very roughly that we are probably talking about 400 to 500 sites. If we get down to that level it should not be very difficult to prepare a register of sites that will be able to receive the decoders and provide those decoders free of charge and, if necessary, subsidise the cost of the receivers so the people in these very remote areas are not paying any more than the people either in the bush close to town or the people in town. There are plenty of options to be considered. They will be considered by the Minister and this Government as we go down the path. We are not going to jump in and willy nilly make decisions that will later be regretted and rejected by the people in the bush. We are doing it cautiously and carefully. When we finally get the service it will be the service that the people want, not some other service the Opposition would like to shove down our necks. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.13) —I have heard yet another speech from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) who must now take the cake as the greatest apologist who exists in this Parliament. He constantly takes his time telling his own constituents what is not good for them. I have heard him on the uranium debate telling his constituents they cannot sell their product. Of course, they seem to think differently. Now I have heard him telling his constituents it is not good for them to have commercial television-at least not at this stage-and that that is not what they want. Mr Reeves —That is not what I said. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member lost me and I was listening. Mr Reeves —Mr Deputy Chairman, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr TUCKEY —If the honourable member sits down he will have an opportunity later to do something about that. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory whether he is taking a point of order? Mr Reeves —Mr Deputy Chairman, I am not. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —We can also now classify the honourable gentleman as somebody who has no understanding of the Standing Orders. If the honourable member were to check the Standing Orders he would find he would have the opportunity at the appropriate time to claim to have been misrepresented. If the honourable member had bothered to look at the original debates he would have discovered that in my presentation on that occasion I drew considerable attention to the fact that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has got a submission from a commercial television station that is prepared to provide the service he said that nobody is prepared to provide because there is no money. I refer to the Golden West Network Ltd in Western Australia which has put up a proposal. Mr Reeves —You have to provide television to the Northern Territory. Get your facts straight. Mr TUCKEY —Maybe the honourable member should invite that company to the Territory and be positive for once in his life in this place instead of being negative. I ask him to come forward and suggest that the Golden West Network be granted a facility sufficient to cover his people in the Northern Territory as well. I stand on my feet whenever possible to represent the people in my electorate. I am trying to give this new honourable member for the Northern Territory a bit of advice as to how he should do it. Mr Reeves —Don't come in here telling lies about what is happening in the Northern Territory. You are a pale-faced liar. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Chairman, I would like a withdrawal of the statement made. The honourable member called me a pale-faced liar. I think I have a bit more suntan than the honourable member. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to please withdraw his remark. Mr Reeves —Mr Deputy Chairman, I withdraw that remark. Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order. We heard in silence some pretty provocative and ignorant stuff from two honourable members opposite. They will not give at least some courtesy to the honourable member for O'Connor to present his information. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Chairman, the definition of truth in this place was well described by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) when in Opposition. He said the truth in this place is in the numbers. I think we all know that. Let us get our facts right. The facts are that there are people who are prepared to provide a service in a commercial sense. The amendment proposed by the Opposition purely and simply creates an atmosphere for this to occur. It does no more. It puts no obligation on anybody. Of course, it is very specific in the areas in which it addresses itself. It does not refer to the rogues that some honourable member referred to. If that is the way he wants to talk about this section of industry let him. It clearly says that we should add two sub-clauses to clause 8 of the Satellite Communications Bill. In stating the responsibilities of the directors, it provides: The directors of Aussat shall ensure that, so far as practicable- that is a good word- Aussat is able to meet the requirements for space satellite facilities- Various areas are then listed. The areas I want included on behalf of my constituents-unlike other honourable members who seem to have a similar type of representation and constituency to mine-are: . . . of a commercial television service for people in remote communities and dwellings in Australia; and of a commercial broadcasting service for people in remote communities and dwellings in Australia. That is a reasonable request to make on behalf of people who are otherwise denied this type of facility. Furthermore, the point that I make is that only two services can give people a reasonable choice. I made this point before. I get as many complaints concerning the amount of sport provided on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as I get complaints saying that there should be more. Quite clearly only two stations-in this case one commercial and one-- Mr Reeves —Are you suggesting they don't want sport? Mr TUCKEY —I am saying that I get as many complaints from people who do not want sport as I get from people who do want sport. I am saying to the honourable member that the solution to that is to have two stations. It will not matter what is put on one station. The answer is that a large percentage of the population will not enjoy it. That is human nature, and thank goodness for that. I dearly love the sporting programs and I support those people who want to look at them. My view is that those parts of my constituency which prefer other forms of entertainment are entitled to a chance also. Of course, the honourable member for the Northern Territory believes that what is good for his constituents is what this Government tells them they will have. That is the point I am trying to make. As I said it is not the first time he has stood in this place and tried to talk his own people out of what they know is good for them. It is about time they woke up to that. I hope they eventually do. Mr Reeves —Tell the truth for a change. Try to tell the truth just once. Mr TUCKEY —It is a suggestion I could make to the honourable member. As I said, these people are entitled to a second station. The Government is denying a simple amendment; it is speaking against it. If it were not for the control that the Australian Labor Party has over the honourable member for the Northern Territory and, I suggest, if the honourable member were half a member he would vote in favour of the amendment. Quite clearly he is denying people in his constituency a simple thing that they would enjoy. It is something for which there is sufficient capacity within the satellite system that is going forward. When speaking at the second reading stage of the debate I said that the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia had brought to the attention of the Minister for Communications the fact that there is also a proposal from the Western Australian Government-a good Labor government-as to how the satellite can be used to assist people in the country. The fact is that there is a private enterprise institution, acknowledged by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) as one of the best regional television services in Australia, which is anxious to take space on the satellite tomorrow, if it were up there, and provide a service to remote areas of Western Australia. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory asked that television service to do so and asked his Minister whether he would include sufficient satellite space to cover the Northern Territory, that service would be only too happy to send the same signal to the Northern Territory. It would not cost it anything in terms of capital. I do not know what the additional cost for the use of the satellite would be. Quite clearly, this television service is prepared to do it; the Minister has had correspondence to that effect for quite some time. Mr Reeves —That is the problem, you don't know; you don't know anything about it . Mr TUCKEY —Oh, no; I do not know anything about it! You stupid man! You would not know what you are talking about. The facts are in writing. You do not know what you are talking about but the worst thing about you is that you do not represent your own constituents. That is your problem. At least I have a commitment to the people I represent. I have been prepared to cross the floor to support their views. I would love to see the day when you do that. You let your constituents down every time. You are not worth two bob. Now sit down and be quiet. This amendment is about conveniencing people in the country. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is one person who should be working towards looking after his own constituents. I totally support these moves. They are in the interests of country people; they are designed for country people. They are not designed for the big television stations which I know the previous Government was anxious not to impose on the regional distributors and I do not think this Government should. However, the fact of life is that this is not what this amendment says. The amendment is clear. It creates a facility for people in the remote areas and it should be assented to by the Government. In doing so it will do very little harm and it could do a lot of good as time goes by. I wholeheartedly support this amendment on behalf of the people in my electorate, at least, who need this type of help. They need it and if the honourable member for the Northern Territory does not want it for his constituents, good on him. They can learn that in due course. But he should not deny it to the other people in the remote areas of Australia who need it badly. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(8.24) —I want to respond to the points made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). Once again he has shown that he does not know anything about what he purports to know. First of all he does not even understand what the Opposition has put in terms of its amendment. Secondly, he does not even understand that the proposition put by Golden West Network Ltd is still possible under the arrangements that the Government has said can take place. In fact Government has invited television stations to indicate their interest. What is more, Golden West has as much right to do so as anybody else. What this amendment is trying to do is provide a privileged position for people on a national basis which would eliminate the very company that the honourable member for O'Connor has been trying to support for the last 10 minutes. That shows how much the honourable member knows about the matter. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) has quite clearly said, the fact is that many of the regional stations could be providing television services. For example, a television station in Darwin has indicated that it is now prepared to consider providing services for areas for which it did not previously provide services. It will be doing so by landline. It could have done it years ago if it had bothered. Similarly, many regionals around Australia could be doing this. There are least 400,000 people today who are not receiving commercial television simply because the commercial regional television stations have decided not to extend their services to those areas. At the moment they have that right. The sort of proposition put by the honourable member for O'Connor about Golden West is being catered for in the current provisions which allow that network to put in a submission asking for access to the satellite. But it should ask for access to the satellite on the basis of proper commercial reasoning, not on the fact that it has been provided with a privileged position which makes Aussat Pty Ltd give it space above and beyond everybody else. The fact is that the proposition put by the Opposition would eliminate Golden West from the running because it would not be able to compete with the three major national networks and therefore it would be eliminated. So the honourable member has defeated his own argument in support of the Opposition's amendment. What I suggest to the honourable member, if he feels so strongly about Golden West and its submission, is that he should cross the floor today when he votes on this amendment because it will defeat the very purpose which the honourable member purports to support. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.26) —I have been convinced of one thing during the speech made by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson): The honourable member has no idea whatsoever of how to read an Act of Parliament. Maybe some type of seminar should be conducted for Government members so that they can understand. I refer the honourable member to the Bill. Clause 8(1), under the heading ' Obligations of Directors of Aussat', states: The Directors of Aussat shall ensure that, so far as practicable . . . I will spell practicable for the honourable member-it is p-r-a-c-t-i-c-a-b-l-e- just in case he has some difficulty with that type of word. I do not want to have to spell it too often. The word is practicable, and the clause continues: . . . Aussat is able to meet the requirements for space satellite facilities-- Mr Saunderson —Your Party is supporting HACBASS II which does not support the proposition put forward by-- Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member should not read into a Bill what is not there. The fact is that the opening statement of the clause which the Opposition is attempting to amend commences with those words. I have just been told that that will force the directors into taking certain action. If the words 'so far as practicable' force anybody to do anything I had better retake an English course. I am quite convinced that there are other qualified people in this chamber who agree with me that 'so far as practicable' means that it is a reasonable situation only; it is a clause that could have been referred to as reasonable. Taking the position from this clause I find that certain requirements are placed upon the directors of Aussat. There are three require- ments-(a), (b) and (c)- and they refer to the requirements of the Commonwealth for air navigation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Let me remind the chamber that this debate would not be on had it not been for the previous Government. The honourable member, had his Party been in government, would have been one of those ensuring that there was no satellite . He is dead against it. He is totally committed to the terrestrial system. In fact many other members of the Labor Opposition, including the present Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), toured the countryside trying to kill the satellite on commercial or any other grounds. The fact is that the Government is not entitled to one ounce of credit on this issue. I rose because it is time that the Government learnt to read a Bill and what will eventually become an Act of Parliament. Of the three criteria that were put two more are now proposed by the Opposition to guarantee something. There was a time in this Parliament that when the Minister or the Prime Minister said to the Parliament 'It is the intention of this Bill to achieve certain things and it is possible within this Bill to achieve certain things', the Australian public and this Parliament would have believed it. In recent times we have learnt differently. Now we want it in black and white. I want it in black and white for the people who have no television and for the people who have very little television. I think that that is something that this Parliament could give those people. Recently we have seen this Government ride on the improved financial status of some of those people. The fact that farmers are back into production because it rained has meant that this Government can play all sorts of wonderful economic tricks which are not its right to play by any means. In fact the people who have nothing in this area are asking for something. Although the honourable member for Deakin has the right to protect Telecom, union involvement and his rather urban constituents who do not have these problems, I repeat my disappointment in the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) who proposed certain things for those people. He talked about the terrestrial system. There is no way that the really remote dwellers of Australia will ever get television by means of a terrestrial system or by radiated signal. They will get it only via the satellite. Mr Saunderson —I never said that. Mr TUCKEY —No. The honourable member said that Darwin is to extend its program by means of the terrestrial system. Yes, it will, to Katherine, Tennant Creek and other areas. It will radiate about a 20-watt signal so that the hundreds or thousands of people in the immediate vicinity are picked up. That would give nothing to the genuinely remote dweller. This amendment, however, is aimed at those people. Of course, should another honourable member criticise and try to make out of this amendment something that is not in it, if he should misunderstand words such as 'practicable', I will again correct him. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(8.34) —I feel that I must make this point very clearly. I will say it loudly so that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) can hear it. It is obvious that he is having trouble with his hearing aid tonight. I did not say-'n-o-t' means not-that the people of the Northern Territory, that is, that area of land to the north of Australia and one of the most remote areas of Australia, should not have commercial television. Indeed, when I spoke earlier I went into detail about the options which were available to provide those people with commercial television. I said that the Government had offered to the existing regionals the opportunity of expanding their services. The detail of the expansion by Channel 8 to include Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs has already been spelt out. It involves not just a few people. One is talking about 30,000 to 40,000 people in those areas alone, people who to date have not received any commercial television. It is worth mentioning as well that in the last 34 years governments of the honourable member's persuasion have been in power for 31 years. One would have thought that in that long period members of those governments could have got off their butts and provided television, radio and telephones to the people in the bush. Instead, we now have an Australian Labor Party Government in power doing what the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia should have done over the last 20 years. They sat on their butts and did nothing. They are now hypocritically claiming the credit for this system. When the communications sub-committee of the Caucus sat we had representation after representation from networks, regionals and other operators saying: 'Would you please clear up the mess that the previous Government created in the communications field? We do not have a clue what is going on. There is no policy . There is confusion, confusion, confusion. The satellite was going to do this and the satellite was going to do that. The previous Government did not have a clue what it was talking about. It just left us in a confused position because it could not work out a policy on communications'. Why could it not work out a policy on communications? Because it did not have a clue. That is exampled by what has happened here tonight. The honourable member for O'Connor does not have a clue. Most of the people opposite who have spoken during this debate, except for the Opposition spokesman in this area, do not have a clue either. Only one or two members of the Opposition have a clue. At least they speak some sense. But the honourable member for O'Connor does not have a clue. The previous Government did not have a clue about it. That is why the networks, the regionals and other operators such as the Myer and the IXL groups came to us time after time and said: 'Please clear up the confusion'. We have been in power for one year. In that one year we have set about clearing up the confusion. We have confirmed the launch date for the satellite. We have set about the process of first of all offering the regionals an opportunity to expand their services. They have indicated that they will do that. We will look at the people who are not covered by a commercial service once we know exactly which people are covered by the regional service. We will then consider the options to provide those people with, first of all, a service; secondly, a choice of programs which would not be provided under the system suggested by the honourable member for O'Connor; and, thirdly, a free service, that is, an advertiser-based service. We will look at all of those options when we have found out what area the regionals intend to cover. We are quite used to hearing the honourable member for O'Connor in this chamber misrepresent, tell untruths and talk nonsense. It is not an uncommon occurrence. He did exactly that by deliberately misrepresenting what I said when I spoke earlier in the debate. I did not say that the people of the Northern Territory should not have commercial television. I went into some detail about how they will get commercial television under this Government's final decision and policy . The clarity of that policy has existed since this Government came into power, which is the exact opposite of the mess and confusion which were created by the hillbillies opposite. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(8.37) —I wish to reply to some of the wild remarks that have been made during the Committee stage. It is not true to say that the satellite program had to go ahead. There was a viable option. It was a viable option for this Government to cancel the whole project. That would have amounted to writing off a loss of around $150m to $200m. So be it. Some representations were made to this Government and, I am sure, to the Opposition that the satellite might lose that amount of money in the first few years. While that is debatable, the Government took the view that it was preferable to go ahead with the satellite program. So it is not true to say that the satellite is going ahead solely because of decisions made by the previous Government. Let us get to the point made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) in regard to commercial television in the outback. I confirm the remarks made by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) who was spot on and by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) who is a very good honourable member and who has on numerous occasions spoken in this place and elsewhere on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory regarding commercial television. He has spoken studiously on behalf of the people in his constituency . The idea put forward by the Opposition, which the honourable member for O' Connor is asking us to agree to, as I said earlier, is for a consortium. He is asking us to set up a commercial consortium which, as the honourable member for Deakin said, would have 30, 40 or 50 members. Who would have control of it? Three to four major networks and all the regional networks would be involved. Those which had the major say in that consortium would be the major networks, not the regional networks, as the honourable member was implying. That is what the suggestion is all about. That is what Neil Brown tried to do and failed to bring together several years ago. Honourable members opposite may argue about words and the other things they have argued about during the last hour or so, but the idea behind this suggestion is to set up a commercial consortium to go on the second Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service satellite. That will not work. Neil Brown realised it was a failed proposition because all the links just did not fit together and they will not fit together now. This Government, as I said earlier, has clear policies that have been put forward. The honourable member for Deakin has articulated those quite well. Honourable members will see that those policies will come forward and that every person in Australia will have the opportunity to see commercial television as well as Australian Broadcasting Corporation programs. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.4l) —I rise more in sorrow than in anger after hearing some of the rather intemperate and, I think, ignorant speculation by certain members of the Government. I had hoped that we had logically put our reasons for the amendment and that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) would reply in his logical way with regard to the Government's attitude to it. I am sorry that that is not to be. It certainly was not caused by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). We have heard two or three wild Government members who made some rather outlandish statements before the honourable member for O'Connor correctly felt impelled to intervene. I draw the attention of the Government to the amendment. The amendment is quite simple. Clause 8 of the Government's Bill, which is entitled 'Obligations of Directors of Aussat', states: The Directors of Aussat shall ensure that, so far as practicable- we have even had that spelt out- Aussat is able to meet the requirements for space facilities, satellite facilities. It continues: (a) of the Commonwealth for the purpose of the provision and maintenance of air navigation facilities . . . Does that mean that the Commonwealth, for its air navigation facilities, will be granted that transponder space free or on something less than commercial terms? That is the implication a couple of Government members have made. Does it mean that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will not pay the full commercial rate for the transponders that it has? Of course not. But that is what Government members have implied simply because we have added a further clause of priorities where practicable. But somehow or other it is a giveaway against Aussat; somehow somebody will get something for free, for less than commercial rates. If it is right for the Government to say that in regard to commercial television, it is equally true that the Commonwealth, the ABC and Telecom Australia will also be given that on less than a commercial basis, which is absolutely rot. I will read the actual words of the amendment. It states: (d) of a commercial television service for people in remote communities and dwellings in Australia. The same applies in regard to radio. What does that say, other than that the Aussat directors have to take into account that if there is a commercial proposition they provide that facility. Government members are saying that they will provide a commercial service for people in remote areas. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) waxed quite indignant about this, as did the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson). Basically the Government is agreeing with our amendment that there will be a commercial service, because that amendment states nothing more than that. The question of how that is to be provided, irrespective of who is in government, is obviously something that must be worked out. We are saying that if we had been in government we would have been further down the track with a commercial proposition than is the Government. Government members interjecting- Mr LLOYD —Honourable members can disagree. That is fine. They can disagree that we would have been further down the track. But what the Government is doing by saying that is agreeing with our amendment, that it could put a commercial service into remote areas better than we could. That is fine. If the Government believes that, what is the argument about? Why does it not support the amendment , because we are both saying that the people in remote areas of Australia have a right to a free commercial television and radio service. On that basis I appeal to the Minister to support the amendment because if one is to believe the speeches and interjections made by some of the speakers on the Government side in relation to this amendment, they are saying not only that there will be a free commercial service to people in remote areas but also that they will do it better than we could have if we had been in government. That is fine. They have a right to believe that. We do not believe it, but what they are saying is that they believe that such provision will be made. So let us all get together on this matter, confirm what Government members are alleging and saying, and support the amendment. I appeal to the Minister to think in the terms of the moderate wording of this amendment. Mr Saunderson —Ha, ha! Mr LLOYD —The honourable member does not know what the word moderate means, but the Minister does. We could all agree on the priorities, where practicable, for Aussat. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.45) —I want to raise a couple of matters. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) indicated that there is some disagreement as to how far down the track the Opposition was when in government, as to whether the proposals it had were better than ours. It should be said that I am somewhat surprised at the claim that it was a long way down the track because, as indicated by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson), the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), their experience in talking to the industry did not indicate that the previous Government was all that far down the track. I must say that my experience in speaking with members of the industry over the last 12 months certainly confirms the view that the industry at least had no idea of where it was going. It appears to me that the matters raised tonight, particularly by the honourable member for Murray, which were put in a low key when compared with the somewhat provocative comments made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) really indicate that the old Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service II proposal, as has been pointed out by members on this side, is still around in the minds of honourable members opposite. In fact, the advancement of that proposal was no closer to fruition when the Fraser Government lost office than it was in 1977. The obvious difficulties in putting together that sort of consortium should be clear to honourable members opposite. It was not, and never will be, an easy concept to put together. The other matter which disturbed me a bit was the fact that there seemed to be some indication from the honourable member for Murray-it must have been given to him by somebody in the industry-that there was some sort of threat by this Government in respect of the regional television stations, that they had to come up with some proposal. I assure him that that is not so. They had discussions with the Department and also I had long discussions with representatives of regional television in Melbourne late last year and again early this year. It was pointed out to them that this Government was looking at the various options that were open to provide commercial television to remote areas in Australia. All that was said was that if they had proposals, to come forward to the Government along the lines of the now resurrected HACBSS II proposal. As far as the Opposition was concerned they should put those proposals forward. They have not come forward and I can understand why, because the difficulties in relation to that proposal are no different now to the difficulties the Opposition faced when in Government. The old HACBSS II proposal is an extremely difficult proposal, with the commercial service on zonal beams and the difficulties with it are no different now than when the Opposition was in government and are unlikely to be different. But I still remain open to persuasion on that point, if it can come forward with something fairly quickly, or come forward to Aussat with some proposal in relation to it. But it does not appear that anything is forthcoming at this stage. One matter raised by the honourable member for O'Connor concerned the proposal he mentioned with regard to the Western Australian Government. That proposal is a matter that is under consideration at present by this Government. It is one that cannot be easily dismissed. It is a proposal which must be given serious consideration. There is no doubt about that and it will be given serious consideration. But I repeat one thing that I said earlier in this debate; that is, that every Australian will have at least one commercial television service potentially available. Many will have two or three potentially available. That means just that. The question that was raised of potential rather than certainty is answered by the fact that we want to try to get it right. This matter has gone on for a long while now and when the decisions are made they ought now to be made in the atmosphere of some calmness. Some decision should be made which will work for those people who have been so cruelly deprived of those facilities for far too long. I must say that the point made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory is well made in the sense that when we came into government, despite all the criticisms that may be made quite justifiably by the Opposition-that is its role-there were more decisions taken in this area when we consider the period we have been in government and what went on prior to our taking office. The previous Government was no closer to a decision on this matter than it was in 1977 because of the difficulties in putting together that consortium that the Opposition seems to be returning to now in the discussion. That is a very difficult operation and probably almost impossible. When this matter was first discussed in November last year, the honourable member for Murray expressed his concern that remote areas had been forgotten. He put forward then that one of the reasons that the ministerial statement was deficient was primarily that it foreshadowed further statements on supplementary licences, radiated subscription television and commercial television services for remote areas. In respect of that criticism, it should be noted that papers on the first two matters have been issued and the Government will address the question of remote areas after the report of the satellite programming service inquiry, which has remote areas as a specific term of reference. Mr Lloyd —What about RSTV? Mr DUFFY —That is one of the areas which the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is directed to examine as a specific term of reference. Those proposals have been discussed by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and the other members of the industry. Thirdly, the honourable member has just raised by way of interjection the proposals regarding RSTV services. The Government has called for proposals for RSTV services from both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the commercial sector. At this stage the Government has not made a decision on RSTV, which I have indicated. What we have done at this stage is to call for proposals in relation to it, and they will be examined within the next three to five months. That is the period in which we shall be looking at those proposals as they come forward. No decision has been made by the Government with respect to whether they should be commercial or ABC. We have an open mind on that matter because we want to be able to examine the proposals from both sectors. However, having had a short lecture by the honourable member for O'Connor on statutory interpretation, I think that we ought to have a look at clause 8 of the Bill. The background of that is that the provisions of clause 8 are designed to ensure that public interest aspects of satellite transmission are met. It applies to only the television remote services. No other particular protection is provided to the ABC there. There is a requirement in sub-section 1(b) relating to the ABC, which states: . . . for the purpose of the provision by the Corporation of television and broadcasting services to remote communities and dwellings. That is the primary object-to ensure that that public interest aspect is met. But that public interest requirement is limited there to television and broadcasting services to remote communities. The first section of the clause provides that Aussat must provide facilities for the Commonwealth: . . . for the purposes of the provision and maintenance of air navigation facilities and related safety services. The provision of services by Telecom in that clause relates to the provision of telephonic services in remote areas and emergency services. So clause 8 is designed to ensure that the public interest aspects of the satellite transmission are met. The amendment proposed seeks to place commercial broadcasting on the same level as public interest priority, above government organisations. It is not appropriate for that objective to be enshrined in legislation in the same way-- Mr Lloyd —We just feel that it is. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member is entitled to feel that, but in regard to clause 8 what I am saying, on behalf of the Government, and the reason why the amendment is not acceptable, apart from the various other discussions that we have had, is that that clause is designed to ensure those public interest aspects which I have just mentioned. In my view, it is not appropriate for that objective to extend to commercial broadcasting. I repeat that the Government is aware of the desirability-everyone has said it here tonight-of commercial broadcasting being available to the remote areas. We are examining the best ways in which that can be done. Decisions on that matter should be available shortly after July this year, so it is not a matter that is being left on the long finger. It is being addressed almost daily at present. Despite the constant carping criticism from some honourable members opposite in relation to this Government and country electorates and the alleged lack of concern for them, it is just not true. We have an absolute commitment to provide the service that those people have been denied for so long and that they deserve to have. For those reasons, the Opposition amendment is not acceptable. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Lloyd's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. 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. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Jacobi, R.Carlton, J. J. Cunningham, B. T.Lusher, S. A. O'Neil, L. R. T. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 9 and 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Shares in Aussat). Mr LLOYD(Murray)(9.06) —I wish to make just one comment on the point made by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) about threats to television stations. I wish to quote from today's Australian Financial Review. An article headed ' Television and the satellite' states, in part: All this of course still leaves the remote areas without a commercial television service. There are groups prepared to supply, at a price, a commercial direct broadcast service to the Outback. Mr Duffy has asked the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations to bang its members' heads together to find a way of serving isolated areas . . . It is the feeling of many that the consortium approach is still to be attempted. Clause 11 concerns the ownership of Aussat Pty Ltd, in particular whether or not Telecom Australia should have 25 per cent of the shares of a company which will continue to be a private company completely owned by the Government. Therefore, I move: Clause 11, page 3, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: '11. (1) Shares in Aussat are not capable of being held by any person other than- (a) the Commonwealth; (b) a person as trustee for the Commonwealth; or (c) such non-statutory corporation, entity, or person as may be prescribed. (2) Each share in Aussat shall be issued with the same rights and restrictions with regard to voting. (3) No shares in Aussat can be sold or transferred unless a statement of the proposed sale or transfer has been laid before each House of the Parliament and the proposed sale or transfer has been approved by resolution of each House of the Parliament. (4) Any issue, sale or transfer of shares, or any arrangement or agreement, that is contrary to this section is void and of no effect.'. The purpose of this amendment is to retain Aussat as a private company with the shares completely owned by the Commonwealth without any shares held by Telecom. We move it simply because we believe it is not appropriate or necessary for Telecom to be a shareholder. In the second reading debate I made the point that if it is logical for Telecom to be a shareholder because of an allied interest or use, it is logical for Australia Post to be a shareholder in Telecom or for Trans Australia Airlines to be a shareholder in Qantas Airways Ltd and so forth. It is correct, as the Minister pointed out, that it is the Opposition's policy that Aussat eventually have the majority ownership in a public company owned by the Commonwealth with up to 49 per cent of the shareholding sold to the private sector. The Opposition is quite relaxed as to when this should take place. In fact the actual intention of the amendment is to retain the ownership completely by the Government of Aussat as a private company. I fail to see why the Government should be upset by that sort of amendment. If there is any criticism by the Government that somehow or other there is a rush from our side to convert Aussat to a public company with a private shareholding percentage, it is completely incorrect because there is no reference in my amendment to pushing that issue. If there is to be any criticism of anybody with regard to converting Aussat to a public company with 49 per cent held by the private shareholding community, the criticism should be directed at the Treasurer (Mr Keating) because he indicated in the mini-Budget of May last year that that would happen. If one looks at the Budget Papers one will see that the Treasury even allowed for that in this financial year. So let us not hear any more rot about rushing to convert Aussat to a public company, because only one person publicly stated his interest in doing that, and that was the Treasurer. The amendment I have moved provides for the power over the future ownership and the arrangement of that ownership to remain completely with the Government. That power is not to be taken out of the Government's hands. I am quite amazed at the bluster that some honourable members on the Government side have used in relation to this issue, amounting almost to blackmail. The only way in which I can logically consider this situation is either to conclude that it is just bluster or to ask who is running the Government in this area. Is it the Government itself or is it a particular union? Government members interjecting- Mr LLOYD —I ask honourable members opposite to listen to this. I listened to them. Let us get one thing quite straight. If honourable members opposite really believe in democratic institutions I suggest that they listen to me also. The whole basis of the bluster by some Government members that if somehow or other we were opposed to Telecom having no percentage, and that therefore the whole lot would be given to Telecom, is really absurd. It is based on four absurd assumptions. If honourable members opposite follow them through logically I hope they will understand what they have really been saying. Firstly, for them to make that bluster or that threat, they must really mean that Telecom is the ultimate horrible, nasty organisation that it is possible to inflict on the people of Australia. It is honourable members opposite who are saying that. Mr Reeves —It is you who are saying that. Mr LLOYD —I ask the honourable member to listen. I listened to him. We are not at a union meeting; we are in Parliament. Both sides have the right to be heard, which is not the case in some of the organisations to which the honourable member obviously belongs. He is not prepared to listen to somebody from the other side putting his point of view as I listened to him when he put his point of view. It is honourable members opposite who have been making the threat about Telecom, not us. One of the logical assessments to be made from that is that honourable members opposite are threatening that, somehow or other, giving complete ownership to Telecom if we do not agree to its getting 25 per cent is about the worst thing that can be inflicted on the people of Australia. That is a terrible insult to Telecom, and the Opposition completely dissociates itself from it. But that really is the logical implication of the threat that some honourable members opposite have made. It is inaccurate and it is unfair to a great national organisation. It is an insult to Telecom for honourable members opposite to have made that threat. All we have said is that we believe it is not appropriate for Telecom to have 25 per cent of the shares-no more, no less. We certainly agree that Telecom should be represented on the Board of Aussat. The second absurd implication of the tactics that some honourable members opposite have been adopting is that somehow or other the Opposition is more powerful than the Government and that the Government is not able to make a decision unless somehow or other the Opposition refrains from putting an alternative point of view. If the Government has been honest in its claim that it will give Telecom 100 per cent if we do not agree to the 25 per cent, why is that the case? It has nothing to do with the Opposition because the Government has the numbers. It must be the result of outside pressure on the Government in relation to this issue. Only the Government knows what the real position is, but that certainly is the implication from the threats that it has been making. The real significance and the absurdity of the threat by certain Government members is that it makes a nonsense of the claim by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that a Labor Government can handle the unions. Here we have a government that is more or less bowing to unions on this issue and we are told that somehow or other it can better obtain the co-operation of the unions. The Government's whole track record in this area and the threats made indicate that the opposite is the case. The third logical implication of the bluster from the other side on this point is that we must question what this type of tactic means for the Government in general. If every time the Opposition dares to oppose the Government on any issue the Government by its own definition then threatens something worse, the conclusion must be that the Government has no firm policy on an issue, only a range of options in descending order of threat and that it comes in at a particular level depending on our opposition. If it is logical to say that if we do not agree to Telecom getting 25 per cent the Government will give Telecom 100 per cent, does that mean, for example, that if we do not agree to an assets test -the assets test and meat inspection charges are two other issues on which the Opposition has been disagreeing with the Government-the Government will hurl a capital gains tax as well as an assets test at us? Does it mean that if we do not agree to meat inspection charges at the exorbitant rate that the Government is threatening at the moment the Government will double that threat by a 100 per cent recovery? I ask honourable members opposite just to think through what the logical implications of that bluster are. If they are logical and that is a consistent policy for them as distinct from the result of some sort of outside pressure, that is the logical follow-through in other areas of policy. Mr Reeves —It was your policy on the meat inspection levy-user pays. Mr LLOYD —An interesting point has been made by interjection. Had we been in government there would have been no increase in meat inspection fees. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) agrees that there should not have been. I suggest that the honourable member talk to his own constituents in the Northern Territory. I suggest that he tell them that the Minister for Primary Industry agrees with the Opposition that there should not have been an increase but that, because of the overwhelming numbers of people in the Labor Government who do not care about rural areas, that increase was imposed on them. If I were the honourable member, in future I would be a little more careful before I interjected on a subject like that, because he cannot win on it. I return to the third point. As I said earlier, if it is correct for Telecom to have 25 per cent of the shares in Aussat because of its great use, it is correct for all these other cross-ownerships to take place. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(9.16) —I wish to speak to a couple of points. Once again we have seen the Opposition's intransigence in accepting that this Government has looked quite logically at what is required. There is no doubt that in order for Aussat Pty Ltd to perform at its peak and in order to ensure the proper development of the national communication network, there is a requirement for an extremely close relationship to be developed between Telecom Australia and Aussat. There is no doubt that the best way for that to be achieved is for the two to be involved in Aussat together. That is why the decision for Telecom to have 25 per cent of the shares has come into being. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), in his speech in the second reading debate, used some examples to show why he thought that this was a ludicrous idea. He mentioned things like Australia Post having part ownership of Telecom and Trans Australia Airlines having part ownership of Qantas Airways Ltd , all of which are totally irrelevant extensions of the argument. The fact is that the satellite and the current terrestrial network will both be involved for the first time in the same area of endeavour. The examples that the honourable member gave relate to totally different fields of endeavour and therefore his whole argument is absurd. He also argued that the $21m that was to be expended could be spent by Telecom in other areas. He obviously has not looked at the Government's decisions, otherwise he would have known how that money was to be raised and what it was going to do. In fact, Telecom will be able to raise $21m above its normal borrowings. It will be purchasing the Government's interest in Aussat. That will provide the Government with an extra $21m which it would otherwise have had to keep tied up in Aussat. That $21m will be able to be used in areas of more urgent need in which the Government is involved. Once again, as in the previous speeches by the Opposition, the argument about union control has come out. In some absurd way, the Opposition's belief that the Government has made the decision for the satellite to go ahead and that Telecom should have some interest in Aussat has been tied to some proposition that this Government has been controlled by the unions. More importantly, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has tied it particularly to one very small union in Telecom-the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. Let us look at the facts as they have been perceived many times by honourable members opposite. The Opposition has put forward the case that the ATEA was opposed to the satellite going up, that it argued vigorously against the satellite going up . The Opposition has even said that the ATEA argued to the current Government that the satellite should not go up. Supposedly, we have been controlled by that organisation in the decisions we have made. If so, how come we have arrived at the decision that the satellite should proceed? That decision is directly against what the Opposition said the union has supposedly been putting to us. Given that the argument was supposedly put by the ATEA, it clearly shows that in that instance we have gone in exactly the opposite direction. The ATEA has spoken out in areas, for instance, in relation to access by broadcasters to the satellite. If we look at the submissions put forward by ATEA and then at the decisions made by the Government we see once again that our decisions were exactly opposite to its submissions. How can it then be said that we are being controlled by the union? If we look at the ownership issues of Aussat we find once again that we have gone on a different tack to that which the union has proposed. So in all of the major areas where submissions have been put in we have differed in our decision from the submission which the union has put to us. Members of the National Party of Australia have another debate going on. Obviously they are not interested in the satellite and its services to the community, but we are all here. They are reminiscing about the old days when they were in government. Let me make it quite clear that any suggestion that the unions within Telecom or the ATEA in particular are controlling the decisions made by this Government is ludicrous in the extreme. Any proper examination of submissions put by that union and decisions made by the Government will clearly show that to be indisputably a fact. I hope that members of the Opposition will drop that ludicrous argument that they have been trotting out every time. The real situation is that Australia currently has a national communications network of which it deserves to be proud. The only way to ensure the continuing development of that national communications network in the way in which it has developed in the past is for the direct involvement of Telecom in the Aussat company. We have done it to an extent where no one can argue that Telecom has become the overbearing part of the corporation. It has a 25 per cent interest. As has been explained by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), it will have four of the 13 directors which will ensure that whilst it has a voice it will not have an overbearing voice. At the same time the interests of the terrestrial network will be preserved as against those of the satellite network. More importantly, it will mean that for the whole of Australia the development of the network will serve all Australians equally; those in the outback, those in the suburban and regional areas, those in industry, those in commerce and those individuals such as community people who wish access for their individual private use. We have ensured that in the way in which we are going ahead. What would happen if the amendment were carried? There would be a development of competition. Even though the two organisations might still remain two public enterprises it would be difficult for the directors of both Telecom and Aussat not to see themselves in some way in competition, to be trying to compete and to provide equal services. That would not be for the betterment of the Australian public. Telecom having a 25 per cent interest will ensure, first of all, that Aussat will be developed to its maximum because Telecom will have a pecuniary interest and, secondly, that it will protect the total communications network as a whole. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.24) —The supreme apologist, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), will not give up. Now he is trying to convince the people of the Northern Territory that it is all right for them to pay higher charges for meat inspection services. My goodness! We have had three examples: Uranium, television and now meat inspection services. He is against his constituents on all of them. I will not go any further into that because there is too much else to which I want to address myself. Mr Reeves —I would have thought you would have sewn it up by now. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member is an amazing representative. I do not know how he went in his law firm. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) made some rather interesting remarks. I thought that the classic would have to be that, if we were not careful, we would have some development of competition in the communications arena and that, of course, we must protect ourselves from at all costs; we must make every effort in the world to protect ourselves from some competition in the communications area. That is what he just said to us. I will quote what he said. Mr Saunderson —No, I did not say that. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member can read Hansard tomorrow; at least Hansard gets it right. The development of competition would be a terrible thing, would it not? After all, if it worked, it could just mean that someone might get something a little cheaper. As far as I am concerned, honourable members opposite can have any financial inquiry they like; they can do anything they like to a monopoly or a statutory authority. At all times people will do their best to convince honourable members opposite that the cost is right and could not possibly be cheaper. I saw that on one occasion with a transport organisation, free enterprise and all but under government licence, where the appropriate civil servant told me that it was absolutely impossible to reduce the charges. But when a group of people in the town that was getting this wonderful service formed a co-operative trucking company the rates were reduced by 35 per cent. In fact, the company that had held that government monopoly for years is still competing at reduced rates. Nobody could ever tell me that a little bit of competition would not be a good thing. The other point that is made, and I think the honourable member for Deakin mentioned a figure, is that Telecom Australia is getting special rights to raise $21m and, therefore, that will not affect its expenditure in other areas. A few rumours are running around that, overall, Telecom will have its borrowing capacity reduced. Maybe we are reducing it and then we are adding on $21m. But even if that is not the case, and I cannot affirm that, why is it necessary to let Telecom borrow $21m to invest in an area where nobody really wants his money when it has failed to deliver to the Australian public absolutely decent telephone services? I am not even talking of a service to the middle of the Northern Territory. Clearly the honourable member for the Northern Territory would be worried about that. He would be worried that his constituents got too many good things. He would worry about that. He is the second 'Life was not meant to be easy' fellow. He keeps going back to the Northern Territory and saying: 'Fellows, life was not meant to be easy'. I am sure that he has learnt something. The facts are that, even if he does not want this service, where it is expensive, for those people who probably, sensibly, will be provided with a service from Aussat Pty Ltd or from one of the digital arrangements that Telecom is coming up with, what is wrong with some people who live 200 miles from the city of Perth getting a telephone exchange that at least is up to date? Last Wednesday in the town of Kulin I had people telling me how inadequate their 1948 model exchange was. It is inadequate today; let us face it. Twenty one million dollars could go to buying them a new telephone exchange, for which they would be grateful. Admittedly they have telephones. It is an inadequate service. If nobody else wants the money, and Telecom has to be allowed to raise additional borrowings to invest in the Aussat arrangement, why could it not first meet its commitment at Kulin? I know that the regional officers, the workers of Telecom, would be thrilled to bits to have some of that money to meet that commitment which would create employment in that arena. It is like what happened when the Premier of Western Australia invested $50m in a mining project . Not one job was created from that $50m investment. I would say that not one job will be created by Telecom investing $21m in Aussat because it is money that other people are willing and able to provide. The purpose of the amendment to which we are speaking now is to create again the climate where these other people who have these sorts of funds can invest and leave Telecom to do the job that it would do best. I imagine that there would be great support for that. I know that there is support for such a philosophy in my electorate. I have a funny feeling that, as much as the honourable member for the Northern Territory tries to talk his constituents out of it, they would think that a good telephone service provided by Telecom would suit them fine. They would see no better way to spend $21m. All sorts of people got all nervous and jumpy when the previous speaker from this side, the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), mentioned some unions. Of course somebody immediately identified one of the unions as the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. Mr Saunderson —You met with the ATEA. You must know what you are talking about. Mr TUCKEY —I just heard it from the other side of the chamber. I will mention it time and again. Members of the ATEA were at Alice Springs even after this Government had won the election. They tried their very hardest that day to convince those people present about the ATEA's proposition. The people present were mostly from the Northern Territory. I am not sure whether the honourable member for the Northern Territory was present. I travelled from Perth to be with those people, that is how important I believed the arrangement was. Nevertheless , those people soundly rejected the proposition of ATEA that we go back to square one. The honourable member for Deakin suggests to us that it is all this Government' s good work that is getting the satellite up in the air and that the Government has resisted the proposals of ATEA. Of course we all know the satellite has got to go up. That has been beyond argument for a year and certainly before the Government won the election because of the amount of money that has been spent. Nobody was ever going to say that the satellite was not going to go up; ATEA had lost that argument, but it has won a pretty convincing argument because it has got itself in with a 25 per cent share. It still hangs on to the straw of hope that it will get eventual union coverage. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie ( Mr Campbell) has just walked into the chamber. I am pleased he did. In his response to the debate the other day he made some reference to the wonderful industrial record of ATEA in regard to strikes. I agree with him entirely. The interesting thing is when there is absolute control of a monopoly how often do people have to strike? That is the height of the ridiculous that a person can go to the employer and put his log of claims on the table and expect the employer to capitulate. He knows the consequences of doing that. The most wonderful thing about the Aussat proposal-as I have said time and again I am extremely grateful for the services it will give people in the country and in remote areas-is that it will provide to Australia for the first time an alternative data transfer network. We read just the other day of how a lady from America was able to transfer funds in eight seconds on the wonderful communication systems available to us today. Day by day business and government become more and more reliant on data communication. Quite clearly, nobody in this Parliament could guarantee us the direction of the leadership of a union such as ATEA in years to come. As moderate as it might be today, nobody can guarantee that. There is absolute responsibility on government in this day of electronic communications to ensure that nobody, whether he be in business or in the union movement, has a total monopoly on that service. Clearly, we are getting back to a situation where that can occur because the Government is specifically providing for Telecom to buy back in, to be on the ball and, of course, to totally restrict the competition as the honourable member for Deakin has said. After all, quite clearly, we do not want to have any competition, do we? Mr Saunderson —I never said that. Mr TUCKEY —We will read the Hansard tomorrow because I wrote the words down as the honourable member said them. Mr Saunderson —I said they would be involved in competition between themselves. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member might do a Senator Walsh. He got the Hansard changed. The honourable member might as well try that. He said that we cannot have competition; that is the point. I support the amendment because I think it is essential that other bodies, such as Telecom, do not invest in this enterprise. The example was made that if one mixed in perhaps one should have an investment. I suppose the Department of Aviation could be included there. The fact is that people want to invest in Aussat. There is plenty of money out there for it. If we can raise a few more shillings for Telecom we should get it to invest in telephone exchanges and telephones. It has yet to provide a decent service. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(9.36) —We have heard some extraordinary things in this debate tonight, especially in the previous speech made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The basic difference between the Government and the Opposition in regard to this clause is the basic philosophy that the amendment put forward by the Opposition means that there can be and would be most likely under a government of the Opposition-which fortunately will not occur-100 per cent private ownership. That is what the clause says. It allows 100 per cent private ownership. Let us take this bit by bit. Let us take that clause first. It allows 100 per cent private ownership no matter what the Opposition says. I will not be as kind as the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in his rounding up of debate on the second reading speech when he said that this may have been unintentional. I believe it is deliberately intentional to put that in the clause so that at a time when it pleases the Opposition it can put the proposition forward to the people of Australia that it should sell the whole of Aussat off to private enterprise. I will just pick up the very last point that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) made in regard to the power behind the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association, or any other union, business, company or corporation in this country. If we are selling it off we are not necessarily selling it off to two or three people. We are selling it off to anyone. I have a basic principle: No matter who that person is or who those persons are it is dreadfully wrong in the extreme to sell the entire communications of a country. In the decades ahead we will be looking at the satellite. The honourable member for O'Connor has espoused the wonders of the satellite which will become more evident as the decades progress. Yet the Opposition is proposing this amendment to sell the entire communications satellite system off- that is what the amendment provided-to private enterprise. Therefore, the communications in this country will not be owned by the people of Australia as they should be. In a crisis, such as a defence crisis, which is why most countries do not sell off their communications to private enterprise, a government does not have control if the entire satellite system of a country, which will be the major component of our communications in three or four decades , is in private hands. Of course one could romanticise about the hands they may be in. I am quite sure the Opposition would jump very quickly if, for example, Laurie Carmichael decided that he would take up a few shares in Aussat Pty Ltd as against Kerry Packer. If it is sold to private enterprise it is sold to anyone, whether he is to the left or the right. I believe a basic principle is involved. No matter who they are we do not sell the communications of a country off into private hands. That is what this amendment is all about and that is why this Government will reject it out of hand. The honourable member for Deakin quite succinctly put at rest the nonsense that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) talked about in regard to the union situation. It is quite nonsensical. The former right honourable member for Richmond in his heyday talked about the unions, union bashers, the socialists on the horizon, and that they were charging to disrupt the country and the unions, et cetera. But all that has gone. It has passed by honourable members of the Opposition. They are all men of yesterday. Why do they not wake up to the situation? People do not buy that rhetoric any more. The honourable member for Deakin pointed that out quite succinctly. The competition that honourable members are talking about we will probably get to in the next clause, clause 17. But just to reiterate, we will talk about fair competition when the Opposition moves the next clause because there will be plenty to talk about in answer to the honourable member for O'Connor who talked about clause 17 on competition and not clause 11. As I said, the amendments to clause 11 put by the Opposition take the ownership of a satellite system in what is a fairly major new step for Australian communications and what will become a very major part of our communication system. As far as we can foresee at present, that situation probably will be enhanced as the decade continues. That ownership is to be taken out of the people's hands and put into private hands. Although the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has stated that that ownership will be up to 49 per cent, the true intention is not in the amendment. The figure of 49 per cent is not stated in the amendment, rather it needs: such non-statutory corporation, entity, or person as may be prescribed. One person can own all the shares under such an amendment. One person could own 100 per cent of the shares. As I have already stated, it is quite clear that the Opposition, if it came to power, would do just that. Whether the Opposition did it straightaway or at some foreseeable time in the future, that is what the amendment says. That is not what the people of Australia want. Historically or traditionally that is not what the Australian people want. It is not what good governments around the world require of their communication system, which is one of the most important aspects of any society. The people of Australia should have control. Under this Government's proposals the people of Australia do have that control. Under the proposals put forward, 75 per cent will be owned by the Government and 25 per cent will be owned by Telecom Australia-not the Australian Telecommunication Employees Association, as the honourable member for O'Connor said earlier. He said that the ATEA will have so many of its members on the board. That will not be so. I hope that Telecom will have so many members on the board, not the ATEA as the honourable member said in his closing remarks. Telecom will be on the board because of the integration of what is a very good telecommunication system in this country. It represents the integration of a terrestrial system and a satellite system which will mean that Australia will have one of the best telecommunication systems in the world. For all those reasons, the Government supports the legislation as put forward and rejects the amendment out of hand. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.42) —I have had to look again at the amendment because from listening to the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) one would think it says something else. Mr Charles —Look at clause 11(c). Mr TUCKEY —Let us read the amendment. It states: Shares in Aussat are not capable of being held by any person other than- (a) the Commonwealth; (b) a person as trustee for the Commonwealth; or- paragraph (c), which worries the honourable member so much, reads: such non-statutory corporation, entity, or person as may be prescribed. Prescribed by whom? Mr Duffy —The Government, whom do you think? Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Minister. I thought the Government was in the Minister' s hands. We have just had a scenario painted for us of someone flogging off the whole Aussat empire. Let us look at the reality of that. If a government is elected from these benches on a future occasion-- Mr Saunderson —It will be a long time. Mr TUCKEY —We will not debate that. But any time another government takes over it can change this legislation. Whatever is put in the legislation today can be changed. It may be that some of the coups that are being fomented in the Government's back corridors at the moment will result in a change to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Ministry. This Bill can be brought back and changed. It is a frivolous argument to suggest that a move made today concerning legislation of this Government could suddenly materialise as a selling off of Aussat when that is the Government's intention. That is a frivolous argument. As I understand it the purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that the shareholders of Aussat do not include other statutory corporations of the Government which could better invest their funds in servicing their present customers. In this case that particularly refers to Telecom. That is why the amendment contains that provision. It is to be used and interpreted as this Government or the government of the day sees it. I remind honourable members that the day a new government or a new administration of my Party steps in there is nothing contained in this Bill that cannot be changed in a day. To quote the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), truth is in the numbers in this place. That is what he said when he was in opposition. Mr Charles —Have a look at clause 12. Mr TUCKEY —The fact is that however the Act is written it does not bind the Government to anything more than what it says. There is nothing in the Bill or the amendment that obliges the Government to sell the Aussat shares to anybody in particular-even to the extent, under the present Bill, of selling to Telecom. The Minister even there has some discretion. I repeat and support my argument that Telecom has better things to do with its money. I repeat-contrary to what has just been said-this is a form of deal to pacify the Australian Telecommunication Employees Association because that is the least it would take. Mr Charles —Look at the facts. Mr TUCKEY —I am sorry. It is not so long ago that the honourable member for Isaacs stood up and said that we had better take this deal because the alternative was that Telecom would own the lot. I had to remind him that that did not seem very logical. Nevertheless, that was the fear amongst Government members. I do not believe any Government members believe Telecom should own the lot. Mr Campbell —I do. Mr TUCKEY —I believe the Government had a great fight amongst its members. I forgot that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie is one person who believes that Telecom should own the lot. I have heard him say it publicly. I admire him at least for his dedication to his cause. He has brought some roofs down on his head in different places for saying that. We have to get the reality of this situation before us. The reality is that clause 11 is introduced to give the government of the day the opportunity to sell shares where it believes they should be sold, but to preclude the government the right to sell those shares to statutory authorities such as Telecom. We on this side of the chamber believe that statutory authorities such as Telecom have a lot better things to do with their money. We believe that by doing those things such statutory authorities would be in a job creating mode which in my mind would be a lot better than a pure investment mode. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(9.47) —I rise only to confirm the fact that the argument over ownership of the satellite and Telecom Australia's participation in ownership of the satellite is indeed over. It is not over just because the Opposition benches were entirely empty when the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) said a moment ago that honourable members from the Opposition benches could one day achieve government. The argument is over because this Government is finally bringing the satellite to the people of Australia and is putting it in the hands of the Australian people. That is why the argument is over. The Australian people will be so pleased-they already are-that the satellite will belong to them. If there is one thing I cannot understand it is this fear and horror of the participation of Telecom Australia. It is not a question of there not being competition; it is a question of there being co-operation among the people best qualified to have anything to do with the satellite. On the one hand we have the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) talking about our unnecessary protection and pampering of Telecom, on the other hand we have him talking as if we were threatened by Telecom. The fact is that this Government, in the interests of the most effective functioning of a satellite, is bringing Aussat Pty Ltd and Telecom together to work co-operatively. Telecom has a greater expertise to bring to this satellite than anyone else in this country. Telecom Australia has developed a telecommunications system which is of the highest quality by international standards. The frequent application of new techniques has been of importance in this regard. Communication satellite systems basically perform the same functions as terrestrial communications carrier systems, to transmit messages by electronic means between two or more points. Prior to the development of the satellite communication systems the carrier systems employed by Telecom Australia, and before it the Postmaster-General's Department, underwent substantial technological changes. More and more sophisticated cables were developed and applied. We have also seen the development of more sophisticated microwave systems and digital radio concentrator systems for telephone services in remote areas. All the time it has been Telecom providing this and progressing in this way. Next is the application of fibre optic cable and digital transmission techniques-two further changes at early stages of application. In a very real sense the application of geo- stationary earth satellites is part of this continuing pattern, a pattern where the expertise has been developed by Telecom for so long. It is for that reason that it is necessary that Telecom is part of the communications system. It is for that reason that co-operation between Aussat and Telecom will be to such an advantage. I am tired of the Government being accused of pampering, over- protecting or succumbing to the threats of Telecom when the Government is faced with an Opposition whose first interest in the satellite was to give it to its powerful friends. That was the whole point of the former Government's interest in it in the first place. It was not for the public good but for the private profit of its friends and backers. The Opposition is not denying that, and everyone knows where it all began. It was proved earlier tonight that a consortium would not work because it never has worked. However, the fact is that individuals in the media game can be powerful enough to take it on themselves. It has come to our attention today that News Corporation Ltd is poised to commence direct broadasting of commercial television in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. This is at a time when the British Broadcasting Commission's plans to introduce direct broadcasting have been thrown into confusion by a dispute with the Thatcher Government and technical standards. News Corporation Ltd probably regards itself as more powerful than either of the conflicting parties in that dispute. Mr Murdoch has said: We are thinking of direct broadcast satellites as something that will fill in where cable TV cannot go. We cannot convince the people of Australia that a man of the unabashed power and ambitions of Mr Murdoch would not try to take on this on his own if a consortium could not be formed. Certainly Aussat will be making a profit, and Aussat will be interested in profit for the people of Australia. That is why I still cannot understand the objections to either public ownership or more importantly Telecom 's participation in the ownership of Australia's satellite. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(9.53) —Firstly, I should say that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has yet again misrepresented my position in this debate. I had not entered the debate on this clause yet he still misrepresented me. As a general rule honourable members can take what the honourable member for O'Connor says, apply the exact opposite, and they have got my position. The honourable member always tells lies and untruths about what honourable members involved in the debate are really saying. Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that unparliamentary statement. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Will the honourable member withdraw the remark? Mr REEVES —Which remark, Mr Deputy Chairman? Mr Lloyd —'That you always tell lies'. Mr REEVES —I withdraw the word 'lies', Mr Deputy Chairman. The honourable member for O'Connor always tells untruths about what the Government speaker who has just sat down has said about a particular matter. He continues misrepresenting people and talking nonsense, so we are used to that. Let me deal with the subject of this amendment, which is ownership. Its object relates to the continuing campaign run by the Liberal and National parties against Telecom Australia. When the Opposition was in government it conducted a reign of terror against Telecom; it persecuted it into the ground, bled it dry and left it moribund for when the Government eventually arrived on the scene. It is because of that reign of terror, that persecution, that Telecom is in a position in which the honourable member for O'Connor complains about archaic exchanges. The fact is that the previous Government was more interested in persecuting Telecom than in making sure it was able to provide a service to the people in remote areas such as in the Northern Territory and the electorate of O 'Connor. Of course the former Government was too stupid to realise that it was also attacking cross-subsidisation which meant that the people in the bush got a substantially cheaper service than if they had to pay on a user pays basis. The dries, people such as the honourable member for O'Connor, who apply user pay principles, do not tie up the question of cross-subsidisation and user pays. They do not seem to realise that if they had been successful in their attack against Telecom there would have been an increase in telephone charges to people in the bush of thousands and thousands of percentage points. As distinct from people such as the honourable member for O'Connor and the various other Opposition members who have spoken in this debate, the real concern of this Government and Government members who have spoken in this debate is to ensure that people in remote areas do get these services. They get television and radio through the Aussat system and telephone services through Telecom. A point that should be made regularly is that the previous Government- the Liberal and National parties-were in power in this country for 31 of the last 34 years. It was in government for eight years before the Australian Labor Party came to power. All the time it talks about telephone services, television and radio for remote areas. It had eight years in government before the Labor Party was elected and 31 of the last 34 years to do something about it. Anyone would think that any government with just the slightest bit of competence and ability might have been able to get its act together to get, for example, Telecom's remote area program under way in either the eight or the 31 years that it was in government. One would have thought that it would have moved just enough to get people in remote areas a telephone; but no. When the Labor Party came to power the remote area program was just starting. The former Government had eight years to get it going but it did nothing. Yet the hypocrites feign concern about the people in the bush. The real position is that the Opposition has talked and talked and talked. It has made plans, revised the plans, made more plans and revised those plans. It then talked a bit more and made a few more plans but it never committed one penny to the program. That was the usual situation. It never did anything; it just talked about it and expressed concern like honourable members opposite have tonight. However, this Government is at least getting on with the job of, firstly, providing telephones for people in the bush and, secondly, getting them television and radio services . It is very unfortunate that they will get television and radio about five years before they will get a telephone. However, that is the fault of the previous Government. If it had got off its butt in 1975 when it came to power and done something about the provision of telephones for people in the bush they might well have those telephones right now. They would certainly have them at about the same time that they will get television and radio. Of course, part of the problem was that the previous Government did not understand what the satellite capacities were. It did not understand that it would cost $60,000 to set up a telephone service through the satellite. It did not understand the whole system. It built up expectations about the satellite; it built up the expectations of people in the bush about what the satellite would deliver. It promised people that they would get telephones when it knew they would not. The former Government has reached a position where, having built up those false expectations, it now says that somehow this Government is responsible for not having provided services or for Telecom having archaic exchanges when the Labor Party has been in government for only a year. At least in the last year the Government has made numerous decisions on the future of communications. It has set out exactly where it is heading on the question of the satellite. People know exactly where they are going in terms of the introduction of the remote area program. They know when they will get telephones, television and radio which is considerably more-in fact 100 per cent more-than what the previous Government did. It could not tell the people of the remote areas when or whether they would get these services. All it did was promise things, talk about things and plan things: It never got off its butt and actually did things. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.00) —There is a grain of truth in so much of what the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) says. It is, of course, the art of the propagandist and the tool of those who would try to fool the public. It is true that a future government could come into this place and alter this Satellite Communications Bill. That is absolutely no reason why this Government should be a party to facilitating that. We want this Bill to stand as it is. We reject this amendment simply because we do not want to expedite or facilitate in any way the future sale of this asset to other entities. However, a few matters need to be looked at. As is the case so often with honourable members opposite, they really do not understand how the corporate sector works. There really is not room in the ownership of the satellite for any other entity once Telecom Australia is involved. No corporation in its right mind would try to compete with an entity such as Telecom which had technical expertise and the managerial control of that satellite. I think that if one were to check that with anyone in the private sector that would be verified. Another thing which has to be considered in relation to this matter is the long term prospects. We need some planning, which is a word which is quite foreign and complete anathema to the plough boys and others opposite. The future of data communications in this country may well, in fact, lie with a terrestrial-based laser system. It may well be that future communications will be done in that way . If we do not have Telecom involved in the satellite it is quite possible that we could be left with redundant technology. If that satellite were in the hands of the private sector we know very well what the recourse of the people opposite would be. It would be to stop progress, to hamstring the technical advancements which would have been brought about by Telecom and to ensure that the private sector was protected from the terrible monster of progress which they have shown in the past that they have a great fear of. The honourable member for O'Connor talked about Telecom putting money into telephones, which are badly needed. The reason that telephones are badly needed is the way the system was abused and run down by the previous Government. The previous Government is entirely responsible for the lack of telephones in the bush. It has nothing to do with the operation of this satellite. The action of the members of the Opposition has so often indicated that they would hack into the cross-subsidies so vital to the people in the rural sector. We hear them getting up one after the other criticising Telecom in this area. They do not seem to realise that the area of profit is in the golden triangle, Sydney- Melbourne-Canberra. Their view is, 'to hell with the bush'. That view is becoming more and more apparent to the people who live in the bush. The way that the previous Government built up expectations was addressed by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves). This is absolutely true. I go back to 1979 when one of the first seminars was held. The University of Western Australia's expectations were cruelly built up by the members opposite. I remember the Parent-Teachers Association meeting in Meekatharra when the then Minister prophesied all sorts of benefits which were never intended. I believe that he knew at the time that those people had no hope of ever achieving them. It is that expectation and disappointment with which this Government now has to contend. I believe that the people throughout the country will recognise that this Government is moving to facilitate communications and to bring these resources to people in the bush. I believe that this Government will be appreciated for this. The reason for the dismal performance of members of the Opposition, I think, is quite apparent. They are totally bankrupt of ideas. The truth is that collectively they lie. They lie because their lives are dreary. They lie to hide their shame. Some of them, I think, started out as statesmen, but it is obvious that they could not stand the strain. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.06) —I would like to deal very briefly with a couple of matters. The first concerns the cost to Telecom Australia of taking a shareholding in Aussat Pty Ltd and was raised by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The cost of taking up that 25 per cent shareholding in Aussat is in the order of $21m. Of this, approximately $14. 8m is due by June 1984. In July 1984 a further $5.6m is due, being a 30c call on the shares. The final call of 4c a share will be made later in 1984-85, approximately $0.75m. I think that those opposite ought to be reminded that Telecom's capital expenditure in 1982-83 was $1,573m. They also appear to me to ignore totally the fact that we all believe-there was no advice to the contrary, and certainly none from the other side, having regard to the matters raised by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) as to the expectations of the satellite system-that the satellite system will be profitable. Of course those profits will be shared by Telecom under this arrangement. That seems to me to have been ignored-that the 25 per cent shareholding by Telecom of course gives Telecom the right to share in profits. The suggested amendment is extraordinary because it does, in fact, allow a sale of shares of up to 100 per cent to private shareholders and excludes participation by statutory authorities. It does not guarantee a majority of public ownership and would exclude Telecom participation. It ignores entirely that very real contribution which Telecom can and will make to the success of the satellite company. That contribution goes beyond the provision of capital. It extends to the provision of expertise in technical matters and to the development of operation and policy. Telecom's representation on Aussat's board will naturally promote a direction and an integration which are so necessary. It was indicated by previous speakers from this side that it is necessary to have an integrated telecommunications network. It is on this issue that there is no room for compromise as far as the Government is concerned. What was said is true ; some government may be able to do something in the future-if, for example, at some stage the Opposition is returned to government. But, as was indicated by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, we do not propose to make that any easier than it should be. We do not propose to facilitate one share in Aussat being in the hands of private enterprise. I refer to clause 12 of the Satellite Communications Bill which states that if people want to wind up Aussat or do something with it in that regard it shall not be done, 'except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament'. It is not just the numbers game that was referred to by the honourable member for O'Connor. In fact, clause 12 requires a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. I must say that this is the crunch section of this Bill as far as this Government is concerned. I repeat that while this Government is in office, not one share in this company will be in the hands of private enterprise. For those reasons the Government totally rejects this amendment. Question put: That the clause proposed to be omitted (Mr Lloyd's amendment) stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. 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. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Tellers)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. Hunt, R. J. D.Cunningham, B. T. Carlton, J. J.O'Neil, L. R. T. Lusher, S. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 12 to 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 17 (Aussat satellite facilities not to be used for certain businesses). Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.18) —by leave-I move: (3) Clause 17, page 5, lines 18 and 19, omit 'Aussat or an eligible person', substitute 'Aussat, an eligible person or an authorised user to the extent (if any) permitted by agreement entered into between Aussat and that authorised user '. (4) Clause 17, page 5, omit sub-clause (3), substitute the following sub-clause : '(3) In this section- 'eligible person' means- (a) the Commission; (b) the Australian Postal Commission; or (c) The Overseas Telecommunications Commission; 'authorised user' means a person provided for in sub-section 16920 to the extent (if any) authorised by agreement between Aussat and that authorised user to conduct such a business.' The intention of these amendments is to place Aussat Pty Ltd on the same basis as Telecom Australia in the very limited area of private data and switched traffic, that is, about 4 per cent of the total Telecom business. There is no attempt to interfere with the public switched network of Telecom, that is, the public telephone system, and that has been accepted by the Government side as well. There is no attempt to delete clause 13, which prevents Aussat from providing a public switched system in competition with Telecom. There is no reason, therefore, why Telecom should be permitted to set its own rules for third party traffic but that Aussat should be denied the same opportunity. The inability of Aussat to declare what will be possible has already caused considerable uncertainty with many potential users. In my earlier speech I quoted some of them-news services, computer and data services, booking agencies, electronic mail services, et cetera. In case anyone thinks that that is just my imagination , I should like to quote from a publication called Media and Communications: Questions at the Sydney 13 February seminar highlighted some important issues with which AUSSAT has so far not come to grips. Two obvious difficult areas yet to be dealt with are: the application of the Government's prohibition on resale of leased capacity; the meaning to be given to third party traffic. Presumably, the prohibition on 'resale' does not apply to Telecom? This is one matter which might be usefully dealt with in the draft legislation being prepared for AUSSAT. Does that prohibition extend to provision of 'videoconferencing' services by, say, a hotel/motel chain or a company set up solely to provide such services as its primary business function? AUSSAT does not yet appear to have an answer. There is a further quotation, as follows: The regulatory implications of, and the meaning to be given to, the phrase ' third party traffic' have yet to be clarified by AUSSAT. The point I am making is that the concern is real in the business community. I do not believe that it is a crime to suggest a small degree of competition, because we are talking here about less than 4 per cent of the total business. Mr Charles —There is no fair competition. That is what this is all about. Mr LLOYD —That is what we have been saying, but our definition of what is fair and what is not is rather different from the honourable member's definition. Mr Charles —There is no competition; that is rubbish. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member for Isaacs will remain silent. Mr LLOYD —With the rubbish to which the honourable member for Isaacs refers, it is very wise of him to remain silent. I will repeat what I said before. It is therefore not a crime to suggest a degree of competition when we are talking about less than 4 per cent of the traffic. I make this point again so that the honourable member for Isaacs, if he does not believe me when I say it, can believe it when his own side says it, and earlier tonight the Minister said it. That is that the growth in competition is such that in the one year any competition in that very limited area is less than what would be available to Aussat. But if the honourable member is really serious about talking about competition with public authorities, he should be jumping up and down as the defender of Australia Post and the retention of its business with the old telegram service, which has been replaced by the new technology of telexes, et cetera, through Telecom. If he is consistent, he should have been arguing against that being done by Telecom as against Australia Post, because that is the logical consequence of his sort of argument. If I were the honourable member , once again, I would think through the logical implications of some of my statements before more or less jumping in with my foot in my mouth. The point here is that when the Minister summed up the second reading debate, he indicated that very severe restrictions would be imposed by the Government through regulations on what would be possible for Aussat. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what his definition will be of those who are able to make use of third party traffic with Aussat. Will common user groups be able to do so? What will be the definition of common user groups? Will holding companies , say groups of like-minded organisations, such as travel agents or groups of television stations, be able to form a holding company which will allow them to use it on a private lease basis, or will that be considered third party and not be allowed? There are many people in the business community who will be very interested to hear what is the Government's definition and intention with regard to regulations for third party traffic. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.24) —It is appropriate to point out that there is no competition in the amendment put forward by the Opposition. Clause 17, which brings in the third party, suggests that there will be competition, but, as the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) knows, unless a private entrepreneur says that he will cover the whole spectrum, and not just one part, that is, a trunk route or some such item, there is no fair competition. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) spoke a lot of drivel tonight. It was a lot of rubbish. Fair competition takes place only when people compete on the same lines and are willing to cover the same areas. No private entrepreneur has said that, and none is likely to say that. If a private entrepreneur said that, this Government would listen. The amendment puts forward third party competition which, while this Government is in power, will not be allowed. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.26) —We are referring to clause 17 , which states quite clearly: subject to the regulations, a person, other than Aussat or an eligible person, shall not use a facility in an Aussat satellite for the purpose of carrying on a business of providing of facilities for telecommunciation between other persons. The eligible persons are, of course, defined in subsection (3) of the clause as being the Commission-that is, Telecom-the Australian Postal Commission, the Overseas Telecommunciations Commission, or a person declared by the regulations to be an eligible person for the purposes of the section. Clearly, there is a need to co-ordinate, as a matter of overall policy, the private provision of third party traffic facilities. The Government's position is that Aussat should be able to allow third party traffic consistent with Telecom's policy as discussed with the Government. This ability will be provided for by regulation. In summary, clause 17 provides flexibility for the Government on this issue. By regulation, the Government may identify a person additional to the existing common carriers who might be exempted from the provision of the prohibition. However, as I indicated earlier this evening-I think that it must be made absolutely clear-I should make the Government's policy clear because I cannot currently conceive of circumstances which would see the Government permitting any exception from this clause other than the named authorities, those named authorities, again, being Telecom, Australia Post and the OTC, and certainly the Government does not propose to permit third party carriage by private organisations. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Lloyd's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Hurford, C. J.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, 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.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Jacobi, R.Lusher, S. A. O'Neil, L. R. T. Question so resolved in the negative. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order I shall report progress. The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question is: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Clause 17 agreed to. Remainder of the Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.39) —The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence recently heard submissions from the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence Support. These had been prepared in writing by both departments and had been lodged. The submission from the Department of Defence Support had been lodged as long ago as August 1983. We do not know under whose authority it was lodged. We know that some days ago and apparently just hours before the Senate Committee was to hear evidence from the Department and receive its submission formally into the evidence, the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) crossed out certain parts of the submission, leaving the parts that he crossed out still there. We know that what the Minister or his Department said in that submission was in irreconcilable conflict with what the Department of Defence said in its submission. Let me just read to the House what the Department of Defence said in its submission on the subject of Australia's defence co-operation with South East Asia. In its submission of February 1984 the Department said: The overall defence co-operation program is conducted for mutual benefit and while it assists in introducing the Australian defence industry to the region, it is not and has not been encouraged to become an arrangement for promoting the sale and export of Australian produced defence equipment. Whether one agrees with that proposition or not, that is what the Department of Defence said. What did the Department of Defence Support originally say in its August 1983 submission? It said: The Department of Defence Support submits that the development of defence co- operation arrangements with Australia's near neighbours can be of benefit to Australia in two ways: this was deleted- as a means of strengthening the technological dependence of countries in this region on Australia and hence their strategic value to Australia in the event of an emergency. Then it went on to develop what could be done in the stimulation of Australian industry. It said, and this was also crossed out: One way in which this stimulation could be achieved could be for Australia to become a more active exporter of defence materiel, services and technology to those countries in its region which it sees as long term, close allies. One would have thought that that was a fairly sensible proposition, but that was crossed out. The two submissions cannot live together. I would like to ask the Minister for Defence Support some questions and since he is in the House he can answer them. Who authorised the submission of August 1983 to be made? Did the Minister read it? Did he know it was being made? Why is there that basic conflict between his Department and the Department of Defence? Why did the Minister remain in ignorance between August 1983 and a few days before the hearing earlier this month of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of what was in his own Department's submission? How could this possibly be so? How could that submission have been prepared contrary to his views? If it was prepared contrary to his views, as most evidently it was because he went to the effort and took the last minute decision of crossing out parts of it, how did that happen? Who is in charge of his Department? Is he in agreement with his departmental views? Is he in agreement with the views of his departmental head? What are his views on the subject? Does he stand by the thrust of the submission that his Department originally made? Will he tell us in direct terms the reason for the changes that were made? How could this kind of fiasco possibly arise in a department which he is allegedly running so that at the last minute he has to cross out some of his own Department's submission? Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia)(10.44) —I wish to speak briefly on a question affecting two young sportsmen in my electorate. At the weekend some Olympic trials were held for cycling. The world champion, Kenrick Tucker, who lives in my home city of Rockhampton, scooped the pool with gold medals. Two of his brothers, Byron and Russell, joined him in the Queensland team of four which won the team pursuit for teams of four against other States. Russell came a close second to the champion rider, Kenrick, his brother, in the Champion of Champions race. He got the silver medal. He also won a silver medal in the individual pursuit against the gold medal winner Grenda of Tasmania, despite having ridden in three competitions the previous day while Grenda had a rest day. So that was also a creditable performance. Only Kenrick and South Australia's Michael Turtur beat him into third place in the 20 kilometre scratch race. So everyone took it for granted that Grenda and Turtur could be selected for the Olympic team along with Kenrick Tucker. They had both beaten Russell, but nobody else had. So it was taken for granted that the next in line for the team of four would be Russ Tucker. Would that not be taken for granted? Not on your life! Russ was excluded in favour of Kev Nicholls of New South Wales, whose team came second and who himself was fifth in the 20 kilometre pursuit. Gary West, whose team managed to come last despite including Turtur, came nowhere. It seems that these also-rans were preferred because they had managed to come fourth in a world championship team pursuit last year. But that was due in part, no doubt, to a lucky draw for their heats. They were not the fastest. When selection trials were taking place for swimmers, of course, Queenslanders who did not perform on the day were dropped despite holding the world leadership last year. I hope that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), before whom I place these facts today, will use what influence he may have with the Olympic Justification Committee. If there is any justice, I hope the Committee will justify the actions of those selectors. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(10.47) —I wish to speak about the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme, or IPTAAS, as it is known. I think this scheme is a great innovation and helps many people, particularly those in isolated areas, who normally would not be able to afford to obtain top class medical attention. I wish to draw to the attention of the House the case of Mr Ainslee Rook, a friend of mine who lives in Broken Hill. Ainslee is a boilermaker. Unfortunately, Mrs Rook, Ainslee's wife, has cancer. In order to obtain treatment she has to travel to Adelaide. Ainslee came to see me and spoke about the forms that have to be filled in for IPTAAS. Because of the type of medication and attention that his wife has to receive, apparently the doctors have some trouble in filling in these forms. I believe the form that is presently available-I have a copy here-would be mark III. I think there is only one more difficult form and that is the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance form which one needs a PhD to fill in. Ainslee has to take time off to take his wife down to Adelaide to attend the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. They have to go by aircraft, as the journey is 500 kilometres. On arriving in Adelaide, first of all Mrs Rook has to attend the Department of Hematology and Oncology. From there she goes on to have an echo scan of her heart, then to the Department of Nuclear Medicine for a radioactive scan and then to the ward for chemotheraphy. This is all very traumatic, but no doubt many other people in Australia have to attend these different departments in different capital cities. The trip to Adelaide takes one night and two days. The air fares total about $362 and the accommodation about $75. Taxi fares total about $30 and lost time as a boilermaker amounts to about $140. The big problem with this form is that, with so many people involved, when the doctors go to fill in the form-it takes a bit of filling in-they invariably fill it in incorrectly. After Mr Rook has sent the form away it comes back from the department concerned with a request for more information or advice that it is not filled in correctly. There is always something wrong. I am putting to the House a suggestion that comes from Ainslee Rook. Perhaps one side of the form could be filled in identical to the front so that the patient, the patient's husband or wife, or the person who is looking after the patient can perhaps fill in the form and give the doctor some indication of how to fill in the form on the understanding that perhaps the doctor may be too busy or the doctor's clerk may be too busy to fill it in or may not quite understand all the treatment that the patient is receiving. I might leave it there. I just say that there are many people like Ainslee Rook in Australia who would be having difficulty. As I live in a fairly isolated area I certainly receive a number of complaints from people who have a lot of problems with this form. Perhaps it can be sent back to the appropriate department to be looked at in the hope that a more simplified version-perhaps a mark IV I think it would be-could come out to help people like Ainslee Rook. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.53) —I would like to take a few minutes this evening to put the New South Wales elections that were held last Saturday into a little more perspective than we have seen in the newpapers in recent days. There is no doubt that the result last Saturday was an excellent victory for Neville Wran and the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party. Of course, we have to listen to some of the bleatings of the Opposition and listen to some of the bleatings in the Sydney newspapers. What those papers say, of course, does not equate at all with the result. We have an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of this week which states: . . . Saturday's vote (particularly in the Sydney metropolitan area) was a warning to the Government to lift its game. In the news page of that same newspaper we have Ross Dunn saying: A significant result of the State election was the huge protest vote against the Wran Government which has transformed once-safe Labor seats into marginal or semi-marginal electorates. That, of course, is absolute rubbish. Let us have a look at what the same newspapers said in 1983 after the magnificent Hawke victory. The Sydney Morning Herald said in an editorial: The swing to Labor is impressive in all States except Tasmania. Although it is most pronounced in the metropolitan areas, it is apparent also in the rural areas of Queensland, N.S.W., Victoria and Western Australia. In the news pages of the same Sydney Morning Herald of 7 March Paul Kelly says: In N.S.W., Labor performed well, winning seats in both city and country. The N. S.W. result was better than many Labor figures anticipated and is a reflection of the traditional and underlying strength of the ALP in Australia's biggest State. One would think, from reading those two editorials and those two news items, that there was a markedly different vote in New South Wales in 1983 from the vote in 1984. But the facts, of course, absolutely put the lie to this calumny that is being put around by the Opposition. In the Hawke Government victory in 1983, the Australian Labor Party's first preference vote in New South Wales was 50.1 per cent. In figures that I have asked the Parliamentary Library to prepare for me today, it is estimated that the Labor first preference vote in the election last Saturday for the Wran Government was approximately 50 per cent; very little difference altogether. But that is not the impression we get from reading the newspapers or from listening to the bleatings of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). If we listen to them we would think there was some phenomenal rebuff last Saturday. But the Sydney Morning Herald in its editorial and news pages, talking about the same figure of 50 per cent in March 1983, indicated that it showed a significant victory for Labor. We now find that the same figure-50 per cent-in March 1984 shows a significant failure for the Labor Party. Of course, one might then say: 'Let us look at some other indicators in New South Wales elections to see whether Neville Wran is doing well or whether he is doing poorly'. One way in which people measure whether governments are successful or not is by the size of their majority. Let us look at the size of the majority of the Askin Government, the only successful Liberal Government New South Wales has ever had, if one takes time as being an element of success. Askin was the Premier of New South Wales for 10 years, up to the present the longest serving Premier in that State. But what was the best majority that Bob Askin had when he was Premier of New South Wales? His best was a 12-seat majority in 1968. That was the best that the Liberals could ever do-a 12-seat majority in 1968. But if we listen to the honourable member for Dundas and some of his supporters, Neville Wran did terribly badly. He is on the brink of disaster. What is Neville Wran's majority in 1984? It is 17 seats. If that is a loss I hope that we lose the next Federal election to that degree because I am sure that the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would not mind a 17-seat majority in this House. I am sure that the Labor governments in other states of this country would be happy to lose an election if the majority that they had was a 17-seat majority. I think that by any stretch of the imagination the result in New South Wales last Saturday was a magnificent victory for the ALP and a magnificent defeat for the National Party of Australia who went backwards further and further. Nick Greiner can look at himself with only a 32 per cent vote now compared with a 36 per cent vote his predecessor had as the Leader of the Liberal Party in 1976. If that is what honourable members opposite call a victory for the Liberal Party of Australia I can only wish them many more victories in the future. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.56) —In the comparatively short time available to me I briefly want to canvass the law as to the admissibility of evidence which is illegally or unlawfully obtained. One only has to look at the authorities in Archbold, going back to 1861 in Leathem's Case-there is a long and continuous thread of authorities, approved as recently as 1955 by the Privy Council in Kuruma's case-to recognise that there is no doubt at all, as a matter of law, that the method of which evidence has been obtained is strictly irrelevant. Therefore, as the authorities have shown, evidence which has been stolen is admissible and evidence obtained by an illegal search is admissible subject only to the question of whether or not the judge has a discretion to exercise to exclude the said evidence. The case that I want to refer to specifically, which is referred to in Archbold , the 40th edition, at page 1408, is the Queen v. Ali and Hussain in 1965, 2 All England Reports page 464, in the Court of Criminal Appeal. In that case the police used a tape recorder to eavesdrop upon conversations between two prisoners. The evidence was admitted. The method of the informer and of the eavesdropper is commonly used in the detection of crime. The method of taking the recording cannot effect admissibility as a matter of law although it must remain very much a matter for the discretion of the judge. In the case of the Queen v. Mills and Rose, reported in 1962, 3 All England Reports page 298, the Court of Criminal Appeal and again in Senat's Case 1968, 52 as Criminal Appeal Reports it was held that recordings of conversations obtained through telephone tapping by private individuals should be admitted in evidence. The point that I want to make is that the New Zealand authorities support that proposition, as do the Canadian. I condemn the hyprocrisy of those who have stood in this Parliament and claimed that such would not be the situation in Australia. I challenge the Government to state publicly whether or not it is aware of a decision that has become of considerable importance, reported in 38 Australian Law Reports, the case of the Queen v. Migliorini and Others in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, in the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. That is a case in which telephone tapping was carried out by a police officer in breach of the provisions of the Telecommunications ( Interception) Act 1979. Commonwealth law was breached but the Court exercising Federal jurisdiction admitted the evidence. The judge, His Honour Mr Justice Cosgrove, quite clearly stated that a court might well receive evidence in the form of limited broadcasting of a record made illegally. I am appalled that in this Parliament it is being claimed on behalf of the Government that such evidence is not admissible. Mr Ruddock —They could have appealed it if they thought it was wrong. Mr HODGMAN —Of course. The plain fact is that there is a Federal jurisdiction decision in relation to the taping of a conversation in respect of criminal proceedings and tapes obtained in breach of the Commonwealth legislation. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I take it that the Minister for Defence Support requires the debate to be extended? Mr Howe —Yes, I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support)(11.00) —I just want to reply briefly to a series of questions-I do not know that there was much more to it than that-addressed to the House by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). It ill becomes, I would have thought, the conservative party in this House to raise the whole question of defence co-operation and defence sales or indeed defence industry. I would have to say that I inherited in my Department an area in which, despite the enormous emphasis placed by conservative governments and their rhetoric, various establishments suffered enormous neglect . I think that neglect is such that the question of export sales of defence equipment for the most part has been a somewhat academic question. While the various factories and establishments in the Australian context have been able to service in many ways the defence forces in Australia, I believe extremely adequately, they have certainly not been geared up to play any major role in relation to export markets anywhere in the world let alone within our own immediate region. If one is talking about the sale of defence products to developing countries, one must raise that Australia certainly has not made any kind of significant contribution in that area. In 1980-81 we sold something like $2.95m worth of defence related equipment and supplies to developed countries including those in our own region; in 1981-82, $1.2m; and in 1982-83, $1.8m. We are talking about a very tiny amount of activity in terms of any kinds of exports to developed countries including those in our own region. The reason that I made some changes in the departmental submission, and I make no apology for that, was that it seemed to me that the departmental submission was trespassing into areas of policy which were properly matters for the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). In that sense I think the part which was a policy statement added nothing to the submission. I removed what I thought were in many respects some misleading statements. I refer particularly to the reference to the creation of the situation of technological dependence within the Asian region. I think that that statement could be interpreted as reflecting an insensitivity which could be certainly misunderstood within the region. I wanted to ensure that that misinterpretation was not possible. So a change was made in the document, particularly to remove that emphasis and to remove emphases which I felt might well cause people to be misled. There is no question that the Department of Defence Support operates within the policy established by the Government and particularly policies which are primarily defined by the Department of Defence. The Department of Defence Support is primarily responsible in relation to defence industry, the management of the various factories and establishments and the liaison with private industry in Australia. Our role in terms of defence co-operation is extremely limited; our role in terms of export sales has been an extremely minor role in the past. That role has not been defined so much by this Government but has been defined historically by those governments which preceded us. If members of the Opposition are concerned about what has not happened they have to take prime responsibility. I think it is important with respect to defence sales as opposed to defence co- operation that one recognise the sensitivities of the particular issue. I think it is a concern, hopefully to people on both sides of the House, that we have seen in many respects in recent years a growing militarisation of the Third World. We have seen quite substantial increases in military spending in many of the Third World countries. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises, he may continue for a further period of five minutes. Mr HOWE —I thank the House. I think that that issue is certainly a cause of concern. In terms of selling defence equipment or defence munitions or stores within our immediate region, I think we do need to exercise considerable caution . I have never suggested that those sales ought not to take place. Quite the contrary. I believe that we will need to develop more in terms of sales, not particularly within the South East Asian region, but as a massive importer of defence equipment there needs to be compensation on the other side. I think that the very small number of sales that are currently occurring represents a fair indication that sales of defence equipment will not become terribly significant within our particular region certainly for a considerable period. Officers of the Department appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and fairly answered the questions that were put to them. They described the situation as it currently stood and avoided, quite carefully, questions of policy which are questions which ought to be directed towards the Ministers responsible rather than towards departmental people. Their job is essentially to explain the administration of relevant programs to the committees of inquiry. That, I believe, they did quite adequately. Where I believe the submission got into areas of government policy, I exercised my right to ensure that no views were put by departmental officers in a matter that was essentially a matter of ministerial pregrogative. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.08 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend section 24 of the Roads Grants Act 1981. Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to amend section 17 of the Health Insurance Act 1973, and for related purposes. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Patents Act 1952. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Weights and Measures ( National Standards) Act 1960 and to repeal the Metric Conversion Act 1970, and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Commonwealth and Family Courts, Perth, Western Australia. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act relating to the promotion of pork. The following Papers were deemed to have been presented on 27 March 1984: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act-Service Rules. Australian War Memorial Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 39. Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 23. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance 1984-No. 1-Referendum (Self-determination ). Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 35. Defence Act-Determinations-1984- No. 6-Loss on Sale of Motor Vehicle on Posting Overseas. No. 7-In Port Allowance and Settling In and Settling Out Allowance. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 38. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 40. Export Control Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 31. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 30. Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 36. Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for office accommodation for Commonwealth Departments, Glenorchy, Tas. Statements (5) lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Norfolk Island Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 33. Prices Surveillance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 37. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing dates on which the following Acts shall come into operation- Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1983-13 March 1984. Prices Surveillance Act 1983-19 March 1984. Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Health-Symonds, J. Determinations 1984-No. 4. Public Service Arbitration Act-Public Service Arbitrator-Determinations accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1984- No. 1-Australian Government Lawyers Association and another. No. 2-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service. No. 3-Association of Draughting, Supervisors and Technical Employees. No. 4-Australian Workers' Union. No. 5-Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association. No. 6-Royal Australian Nursing Federation. Nos 7 and 8-Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union and others. No. 9-Musicians' Union of Australia. No. 10-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service. No. 11-Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australia.* No. 13-Royal Australian Nursing Federation. No. 14-Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association. No. 15-Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia. No. 16-Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. No. 17-Australian Broadcasting Commission Senior Officers' Association and another. No. 18-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association and the Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).* Nos 19 to 21-Repatriation Department Medical Officers Association and others. No. 22-Royal Australian Nursing Federation. No. 23-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).* No. 24-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service. No. 25-Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia. No. 26-Australian Broadcasting Commission Senior Officers' Association and another. No. 27-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment.* No. 28-Australian Journalists Association. No. 29-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).* No. 30-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 31-Actors' and Announcers' Equity Association of Australia. No. 32-Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia. No. 33-Royal Australian Nursing Federation.* No. 34-Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia. No. 35-Professional Officers' Association, Australian Public Service.* No. 36-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 37-Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers. No. 38-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers').* (* Not accompanied by statement) Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 32. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1984- No. 6-Trustee Companies (Amendment) No. 7-Medical Services (Fees) Real Property Ordinance-Determination listing fees for the purposes of the Ordinance, dated 15 March 1984. Regulations-1984- No. 5-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 6-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 34. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 42. Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 33. Mr McLeay —[question missing]. Mr Speaker —The information for each of the Parliamentary Departments is as follows: Department of the House of Representatives (1) (a) 19 male officers occupy positions classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10 (excludes Speaker's office staff) (1) (b) 2 female officers occupy positions classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10 (2) The names of the officers referred to in (1) (a) and (1) (b) (unless otherwise specified they are permanent appointments) are: Mr D. M. Blake, Mr A. R. Browning, Mr L. M. Barlin, Mr I. Harris, Mr B. Wright, Mr J. Porter, Mr I. C. Cochran, Mr A. Kelly, Mr D. W. Nairn, Mrs B. L. Simons, Mrs S. Harlow, Mr Aldrons, Mr Adamson, Mr K. Schneemann (acting), Mr D. M. Piper, Mr M. McRae, Mr M. Talberg, Mr P. Bergin, Mr A. Hume, Mr J. Cummins, Mr R. Fenton. Note: Mr V. Cleary, Mr D. Lundberg and Dr G. Cheeseman are working in the Department as advisers and do not occupy permanent positions. Department of the Senate (1) (a) 23 male officers occupy positions classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10 (b) a female officer occupies a position classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10 (2) The names of the officers referred to in (1) (a) and (1) (b) (unless otherwise specified they are permanent appointments; are: Mr A. R. Cumming Thom, Mr H. C. Nicholls, Mr H. Evans, Mr P. N. Murdoch, Mr T. H. G. Wharton, Mr J. Vander Wyk, Mr R. J. King, Mr C. Shrosbee, Mr P. T. Keele, Mr T. J. Dodson, Mr J . Uhr, Mr G. N. Nankervis, Miss A. Lynch, Mr C. G. Edwards, Mr C. J. Fogarty, Mr T. J. Brown, Mr R. J. Diamond, Mr P. Barsdelle, Mr P. Roberts, Mr R. J. Wiber, Mr T. Magi, Mr I. B. McNeill, Mr D. G. E. Abbott, Mr R. W. Alison. Joint House Department (1) (a) 6 male officers occupy positions classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10 (b) No female officers occupy positions classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10. (2) The names of the officers referred to in (1) (a) (unless otherwise specified they are permanent appointments) are: Mr J. M. Jorgenson, Mr F. W. Bradley (acting), Mr L. N. Kelly (acting), Mr G. I. Hope, Mr E. W. Howell ( seconded), Mr A. S. Rees (seconded). Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff (1) (a) 11 male officers occupy positions classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10 (b) No female officers occupy positions classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10 (2) (2) The names of the officers referred to in (1) (a) and (1) (b) (unless otherwise specified they are permanent appointments) are: Mr J. Roberts, Mr R. Martin, Mr B. Harris, Mr K. Ryder, Mr R. Bolitho, Mr R. Lutton, Mr J. Campbell, Mr N. Franzi, Mr K. Shearwood, Mr M. McGregor, Mr R. Dennis. Department of Parliamentary Library (1) (a) 13 male officers occupy positions classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10 (b) 4 female officers occupy positions classified at or above the level of Clerk, Class 10. (2) the names of the officers referred to in (1) (a) and (1) (b) (unless otherwise specified they are permanent appointments) are Mr H. de S. C. MacLean, Mr T. W. Lawton, Mr G. R. Webb, Mr J. Templeman, Mr R. A. Webb, Mr J. S. Dunn, Mr P. G. Ross (acting), Mrs D. M. Bennett, Ms D. G. Spooner, Mr R. A. Panter, Mr G. G. Simmons, Mr M. J. Brudenall, Mr E. G. Dobson, Mr G. G. Cooper, Mr M. J. Bray (acting), Miss J. McDonald, Ms D. M. Owen. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 230) Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or 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 or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Organisation 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Department of Aboriginal Affairs 41,959,653 37,785,512 37,414,509 33,196,552 52 ,708,078 Aboriginal Loans Commission 1,013,995 752,724 298,881 . . . . Aboriginal Land Fund Commission 28,000 24,302 . . . . . . Aboriginal Development Commission . . . . 3,307,291 13,198,722 13,749,207 Aboriginal Hostels Ltd 1,867,400 1,708,000 1,470,300 1,624,200 2,088,200 Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies 211,172 180,919 242,868 203,285 258,275 Total 45,080,220 40,451,457 42,733,849 48,222,759 68,803,760 (Question No. 656) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the radio frequency 92.9 MHz of the ABC-FM station in Sydney is the same as the ABC-FM station in Orange, New South Wales. (2) Is it also a fact that this situation creates problems for Bathurst listeners; if so, can he provide any assurance that future listening quality to the people of Bathurst will be improved. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, ABC-FM Sydney and ABC-FM Orange share the same frequency-92.9 MHz. (2) This may cause reception problems in some parts of Bathurst. I wish to advise that: Bathurst is outside the area that would reasonably be expected to get an adequate service from either station at the present time. The ABC-FM service from Orange was not introduced in its final form, and cannot be introduced in its final form until the frequencies of some Band II television stations in the area are changed. The Department of Communications is considering an interim minor frequency change for ABC-FM Orange from 92.9 MHz to 93.1 MHz. This would give significant relief to those listeners with a co-channel problem. It would also give added protection to 2MCE Bathurst. (Question No. 84) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance are available from the Minister's Department, to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements have to be met to qualify for each form of assistance. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The forms of assistance available from my Department are listed on the attached table. There are a number of forms of assistance available to business in the rural sector which are funded by the Commonwealth but administered by statutory authorities, State government deparments or agencies or by other bodies. These are not listed in the table because they are not available directly from my Department. Such assistance includes the natural disaster relief arrangements and the rural adjustment scheme. Assistance also flows indirectly to business from Commonwealth funded researched programs; research funds are not usually made available directly to business enterprises. 1. Assistance available 2. (a) Financial (b) Technical (c) Other (a) Contact point (b) Requirements to qualify for assistance Advice to food industry on international and domestic food standards Central Office, Department of Primary Industry Freely available to interested organisations or individuals on request Financial assistance for Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign (BTEC ) Advice on animal health matters Central Office, Deparment of Primary Industry Compliance with approved program for BTEC Guidance to agricultural and veterinary industries on pesticides matters Central Office, Department of Primary Industry Freely available on request Re-establishment loans for ex-service personnel, agricultural occupations Central and Regional Office, Department of Primary Industry Under the Defence (Re-establishment) Act, generally available only to ex-service personnel who must apply within 12 months of discharge demonstrate need for assistance, suitability of project, prospects of succeeding and repaying a loan Advice and assistance in respect of construction and design requirements for export premises and equipment, product standards, handling techniques, operational practices, packaging and labelling Regional Offices, Department of Primary Industry Exporter or intending exporter of primary products Technical and management advice to the fishing industry Central Office, Department of Primary Industry Freely available to any interested organisation or individual on request Fisheries Research funding Central Office, Department of Primary Industry Research proposals must show specific benefit to Australian fishing industry; applicant must have proven research record (Question No. 827) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: Will he make available the ministerial directives issued to the Secretary of his Department; if not; why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The report of the Defence Review Committee which was tabled in Parliament on 10 November 1982 recommended the issue of directives to make clear the Government's intended relationship between the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Support and their departments. A Prime Minister's directive in respect of the Minister and Department of Defence Support was issued on 13 July 1982 in accordance with the interim report of the Defence Review Committee. I would be pleased to make available a copy of this directive to the honourable member should it be required. The Defence Review Committee made no recommendation for a ministerial directive to be issued to the Secretary of the Department of Defence Support nor has any such ministerial directive been issued. (Question No. 842) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, 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' enquiries. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) (i) Standing IDC on Rehabilitation (SIDCOR); IDC on Private Overseas Student Policy (The IDC has been inactive pending the outcomes of the Review of the Private Overseas Student Program being carried out by the Goldring Committee ); Committee on Post-Award programs and Services (COPAPS); Standing IDC on Government Printing and Publishing (SIDGOPP); IDC on Co-ordination in Aboriginal Affairs. (1) (a) (ii) Commonwealth Participation and Equity Program Co-ordinating Committee; Standing IDC on Youth Policies. (1) (b) (i) Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission are members of the Commonwealth Participation and Equity Program Co-ordinating Committee. (1) (b) (ii) Nil. (2) The terms of reference for the Participation and Equity Program Co- ordinating Committee are: (i) co-ordinating and monitoring the program to ensure that the efforts of both Commissions are consistent with respect to: general directions; specific program goals; accountability requirements; assessing achievements. (ii) overall planning and review, co-ordination of effort between the two arms of the program and advising the Minister on general directions. (iii) advising on expenditure of amounts appropriated to Department of Education and Youth Affairs in such areas as evaluation, research, Participation and Equity Program information and community education relating to the overall program. The IDC on Youth Policies operates as a major mechanism for co-ordinating all Commonwealth policies, programs and proposals to the extent that they affect young people. (Question No. 847) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Primary Industry, 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 Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following lists of inter-departmental committees have been prepared in accordance with guidance provided by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet that the accepted definition of an inter-departmental committee is a committee involving two or more departments established at the specific direction of the Government and for which authority for its establishment is either a cabinet decision or the approval in writing of the Prime Minister. (1) (a) (i) My Department participates in the following inter-departmental committees:- IDC on Torres Strait Treaty IDC on Law of the Sea Convention IDC on Antarctica IDC on Australian/Indonesian Maritime Boundaries Standing IDC on Civil Coastal Surveillance Operations Planning Committee Antitrust IDC IDC on South-West Tasmania Standing Committee on Japan IDC Working Group on National Conservation Strategy (1) (a) (ii) The following inter-departmental committees are chaired by my Department:- Sub-committee on Foreign Fishing Proposals, and Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Liaison Monitoring Committee (1) (b) There are not inter-departmental committees participated in or chaired by instrumentalities under my control. (2) The terms of reference for the Committees chaired by my Department are as follows:- Sub-committee on Foreign Fishing Proposals: To report to the Minister for Primary Industry on each proposal involving foreign fishing interests operating in the Australian fishing zone before final approval, taking into account all relevant policy considerations. This is a sub-committee of the 'Standing IDC on the Extended Economic Zone and Related Offshore Matters' which is chaired by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and considers major policy matters. It has not met for some time. Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Liaison Monitoring Committee: To monitor imports of certain horticultural products from New Zealand and to provide advice to industry. (Question No. 848) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Aviation, 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 Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) My Department participates in the following inter-departmental committees:- Special Interdepartmental Committee on Protection Against Violence Commonwealth Government Counter Disaster Task Force Telecommunications Advisory Committee Interdepartmental Committee on Australian Government Housing Scales and Standards Interdepartmental Committee on Civil Coastal Surveillance Interdepartmental Committee on Motor Transport Interdepartmental Committee on Nuclear Codes of Practice Standing Committee on Japan Interdepartmental Working Group on a National Aviation Museum Sanitation of Aerodromes Committee Interdepartmental Committee on Relations with ASEAN Interdepartmental Committee on Law of the Sea Convention Interdepartmental Committee on Torres Strait Treaty Interdepartmental Committee on Antarctica (General) Interdepartmental Committee on Satellite Re-entry The subject matter of the inquiries of these committees will be set out in the replies to the honourable member's questions from those Ministers whose departments chair them. (1) (a) (ii) The following interdepartmental committees are chaired by my Department:- The Interdepartmental Committee for the Review of Proposals by Commonwealth Departments and Instrumentalities to Own, Replace or Lease Aircraft Air Co-ordinating Committee (jointly chaired with Department of Defence) (1) (b) (i and ii) Qantas, Trans-Australia Airlines and the Independent Air Fares Committee are not represented on interdepartmental committees. (2) The terms of reference for the committees chaired by my Department are as follows:- The Interdepartmental Committee for the Review of Proposals by Commonwealth Departments and Instrumentalities to Own, Replace or Lease Aircraft ensures the rationalisation of Commonwealth owned aircraft whenever possible. All proposals are examined to establish the most economic means of accomplishing the task to be performed by the subject Department or instrumentality. The Air Co-ordinating Committee's function is to resolve joint operational problems by mutual agreement and to submit recommendations to the respective departments. (Question No. 856) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, 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 Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) My Department participates in the following interdepartmental committees: Visiting Ships Panel Interdepartmental Working Group on International Year of Peace 1986 Interdepartmental Committee on New Legislation for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Interdepartmental Committee on Management of Radionuclide Wastes Interdepartmental Committee on Atomic Energy Legislation Interdepartmental Committee on South West Tasmania Interdepartmental Committee on Coordination in Aboriginal Affairs (also known as the Permanent Heads' Committee on Aboriginal Affairs) (ii) My Department chairs the following interdepartmental committees: Interdepartmental Committee on Nuclear Codes of Practice Interdepartmental Working Group on National Conservation Strategy for Australia Interdepartmental Committee on the OECD Chemicals Programme Interdepartmental Working Group on a National Aviation Museum Interdepartmental Working Group on a National Maritime Museum Advisory Committee on National Collections Standing Interdepartmental Committee on the Australian Bicentenary (1) (b) (i) Instrumentalities under my control participate in the following interdepartmental committees: Interdepartmental Committee on Nuclear Codes of Practice (Office of the Supervising Scientist) Interdepartmental Working Group on National Conservation Strategy for Australia (Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service) Interdepartmental Working Group on a National Aviation Museum (Australian War Memorial, Museum of Australia) Interdepartmental Working Group on a National Maritime Museum (Australian War Memorial, Museum of Australia) Advisory Committee on National Collections (National Library of Australia, Museum of Australia, Australian War Memorial, Australian National Gallery) Standing Interdepartmental Committee on the Australian Bicentenary (Australian Bicentennial Authority) (ii) Instrumentalities under my control do not chair any interdepartmental committees. (2) Advice on the subject matter of the committees not chaired by my Department is a matter for other Ministers. The subject matter of the committees chaired by my Department is as follows: The Interdepartmental Committee on Nuclear Codes of Practice co-ordinates the development of codes of practice and regulations under the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 The Interdepartmental Working Group on National Conservation Strategy for Australia examines the document 'A National Conservation Strategy Proposed by a Conference held in Canberra June 1983' and formulates proposals in response to the document. The Interdepartmental Committe on the OECD Chemicals Program provides a forum for consideration of matters arising from the OECD Chemicals Program and co- ordinates the development of Australia's position on specific issues. The Interdepartmental Working Group on a National Aviation Museum considers the development, timing and location of a national aviation museum. The Interdepartmental Working Group on a National Maritime Museum considers the development, timing and location of a national maritime museum. The Advisory Committee on National Collections provides information and advice to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment on issues affecting the National Collection. The Standing Interdepartmental Committee on the Australian Bicentenary provides a forum for considering issues affecting the Australian Bicentenary. (Question No. 857) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 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 Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following list has been compiled on the basis of the definition accepted by the Government of an inter-departmental committee as an ongoing committee involving two or more departments established at the specific direction of the Government and for which authority for its establishment is either a cabinet decision or the approval in writing of the Prime Minister. 1 (a) (i) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs participates in the following inter-departmental committees: Inter-departmental Committee on the Torres Strait Treaty Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Rehabilitation (SIDCOR) Inter-departmental Working Group on Aboriginal Health. Inter-departmental Working Group on Aboriginal Employment, Education and Training Inter-departmental Committee on Courses of Action available to the Government to Deal with Atomic Test Veterans' and Aboriginals' Claims. 1 (a) (ii) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs chairs the Permanent Heads Committee on Aboriginal Affairs (which is also known as the Inter-departmental Committee on Co-ordination in Aboriginal Affairs). 1 (b) No instrumentality under my control participates in or chairs an inter- departmental committee. (2) The terms of reference for the Permanent Heads Committee on Aboriginal Affairs are- 'To allow departments concerned with Aboriginal Affairs to discuss general strategies and to keep each other informed of developments.' The subject matter of the inquiries of all other committees on which the Department is represented will be set out in the replies to Mr Leo McLeay's questions from those Ministers whose departments chair them. (Question No. 881) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the New Zealand Government's Clinical Services Letter No. 222 of 14 September 1983 to Medical and Dental Practitioners and Pharmacies, recommending small fluoride doses where administered by tablet because of widespread use of fluoride toothpaste and because of the possibility of some mild enamel opacities. (2) If so, is he able to say whether (a) the new dosages amount to half the former recommended dosage for children under 4, a quarter for those under 2 and nil for those under 6 months in areas with less than 0.3 ppm fluoride ion in water supplies, (b) the circular advises neither for nor against fluoride tablets for nursing mothers, their infants or infants under 6 months of age because there is no proven benefit to them, and against use of fluoride tablets in pregnancy because of no proven benefit and general inadvisability of unnecessary tablets during pregnancy and (c) the circular advises no more than 5mm of toothpaste, small pea size, for young children. (3) What plans has the Government to establish any benefit of water fluoridation to pregnant and nursing mothers and infants under 6 months of age. (4) What advice does the Government offer to pregnant women in water fluoridation areas whose existing children show enamel opacities and who wish to avoid such disfigurement in future children. (5) At what age does the Government recommend that fluoridated toothpaste be used, and in what quantities. (6) Do Australian manufacturers of fluoride tablets recommend those doses recommended by the New Zealand Government; if not, why not. (7) What doses of fluoride tablets are advisable for homes whose water supply contains 0.3 ppm fluoride. (8) Are free assessments of fluoride concentrations in domestic bore water obtainable, at intervals, on application to local health authorities. (9) Is he able to say whether 1981 statistics for the greater Auckland area, show more children's dental decay in fluoridated than unfluoridated parts of Auckland but not to a statistically significant degree. (10) Is he able to say whether Auckland's principal dental officer and president of the New Zealand Society for Dentistry for Children, Mr John Colquhoun, advised Auckland parents not to let pre-school children use fluoride toothpaste and claimed that preliminary inquiries suggest about one Auckland child in 4 in fluoridated parts of Auckland and one in 25 in unfluoridated Onehunga could have had teeth damage by white flouride mottling and in severe cases discolouration, pitting and enamel breakdown, reaching an unsightly stage in one in 50 in the fluoridated areas but none in unfluoridated Auckland. (11) Will similar surveys be attempted in Australia using double-blind studies, where patients and assessors are unaware of the water supply fluoride concentration. (12) What advice is available to patients and practitioners seeking confirmation of the cause in a case of enamel mottling. (13) Will he take steps to prevent television advertising of fluoridated toothpaste showing several centimetres of toothpaste on a toothbrush. (14) What public funding is available or proposed for capping teeth made unsightly by fluoridation of public water supplies. (15) Will the Government support parents who sue toothpaste manufacturers for damage caused by young children swallowing fluoridated toothpaste. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However, the New Zealand Department of Health has advised that there is no evidence of any increase in incidence of dental fluorosis in New Zealand. (2)(a) The daily fluoride supplements recommended in September 1983 by the New Zealand Department of Health for use in areas where the water supply contains less than 0.3 part per million of fluoride are shown below: 6 months-2 years, 0. 25 mg; 2-4 years, 0.5 mg; 4-14 years, 1.0 mg. The previously recommended dosages were: Birth to 3 years, 0.5 mg; 3-12 years, 1.0 mg. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (3) There is no need for the studies referred to by the honourable member. While there is overwhelming evidence for the effectiveness of fluoridation of water in the control of dental caries, it has been generally accepted that the use of fluoridated water during pregnancy and lactation does not affect dental health of the child. (4) As only minimal development of the permanent teeth occurs during pregnancy the use of fluoridated water during this period would not be a factor in the causation of minor opacities of these teeth. The use of fluoridated water during childhood does not cause dental opacities of aesthetic significance. (5) The Government has never made recommendations concerning the use of fluoride toothpaste at various ages, or the quantities that should be used. However, dental authorities recommend that brushing using fluoride toothpaste should commence at approximately twelve to eighteen months. The quantity of toothpaste used at each brushing has not been defined. (6) No. The manufacturers of fluoride tablets in Australia are guided by the recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council with regard to daily dosage. The Council is re-assessing the recommended dosage in the light of recent developments. (7) A precise recommendation has not been made by the National Health and Medical Research Council concerning the level of fluoride supplements in cases where the drinking water contains 0.3 parts per million of fluoride. The National Health and Medical Research Council currently recommends that in non- fluoride areas the following daily fluoride supplements be taken by children: 0- 12 months, 0.25 mg; 12-24 months, 0.5 mg; Over 24 months, 1.0 mg. (8) This is a matter for State health authorities. (9) I have not been able to obtain these statistics. However, the New Zealand Department of Health has advised that children living in areas of New Zealand where the water is fluoridated have better dental health than children living in non-fluoride areas. (10) I understand that Mr Colquhoun did give the advice referred to by the honourable member. However, Mr Colquhoun's statements have not been accepted by the New Zealand Department of Health which, in collaboration with the New Zealand Fluoridation Advisory Committee, the New Zealand Dental Association, the University of Otago School of Dentistry, and the New Zealand Plunket Society, has recommended the fluoridation of water, the use of fluoride toothpaste and the use by children of fluoride tablets if the water is deficient in fluoride. (11) In view of the available evidence there is no necessity for the studies referred to by the honourable member. (12) A patient seeking information about mottling of the enamel should consult a dental practitioner. The practitioner who requires additional information concerning dental mottling could approach a State health authority or a University dental faculty. (13) The use of fluoride toothpaste by children has been referred to the National Health and Medical Research Council and consideration will be given to this matter when advice is received. (14) Fluoridated water at recommended levels has not been shown to cause defects in teeth necessitating the provision of dental crowns. (15) The question is hypothetical. While fluoride toothpaste has been sold widely in Australia for some twenty years, I am not aware that any parent has sued a toothpaste manufacturer for damage allegedly caused by swallowing fluoride toothpaste. (Question No. 892) Mr Ewen Cameron asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: (1) Can he indicate (a) what progress has been made on the new high powered medium frequency transmitter at Boorhaman, near Wangaratta, Victoria, and (b) when the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will begin operating its new medium frequency radio transmitter serving the city of Albury-Wodonga. (2) Is he satisfied that adequate arrangements are being made by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to provide local news and other local content programs on this station to meet the peculiar two-State needs of Albury-Wodonga. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Wangaratta is included in the remote and underserved communities scheme and planning for this radio station is virtually complete. Construction is scheduled to begin in 1984-85 with completion in 1985-86. (b) The Australian Broadcasting Corporation AM station which will serve Albury- Wodonga is currently expected to be completed late in the fourth quarter of 1983 -84. (2) Coverage of Albury-Wodonga events is at present included in the regional bulletins transmitted through 2CO and serving a wide audience on both sides of the border. This news output will continue and the Albury-Wodonga town transmitter, when operational, can take the same program feed. The existing service to both States is provided through a composite of New South Wales and Victorian State news at 6.06 a.m., 7.10 a.m., and 8.55 a.m., plus alternating relays of Victorian and New South Wales bulletins in the following pattern: 12. 40 p.m. (New South Wales); 1.40 p.m. (Victoria); 7 p.m. (New South Wales); 10 p. m. (Victoria); 11 p.m. (New South Wales) and 11.55 p.m. (Victoria). Existing Australian Broadcasting Corporation News resources do not allow for additional news output to service the Albury-Wodonga town area specifically. This would require some increase in the Albury based news-gathering and production staff. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is presently considering other alternatives for improvement but will need to weigh these against the needs of some other areas seeking improved news services. (Question No. 911) Mr Rocher asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 December 1983: (1) Is it a fact that on 25 November 1983, an advertisement appeared in the national press on behalf of the Australian Electoral Office, headlined 'The citizens of 67 countries have until 6 p.m. on 25 January to make their mark in Australia' and that the text of the advertisement concluded with a list of the 67 countries which were said to be members of the Commonwealth. (2) How many people stationed in the British Antarctic Territory, and the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are Australian residents. (3) Will future advertisements give due recognition to the Isle of Man, the several Channel Islands, and also to Newfoundland; if not, why not. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) As far as the Australian Electoral Commission can ascertain the answer is none, nor can it be ascertained if any citizens of these places are resident in Australia. (3) The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are Crown Dependencies of the United Kingdom. People from the Isle of Man are, therefore, British subjects and provided they were enrolled on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll on 25 January 1984, they are entitled to vote at Federal elections. The omission of a specific reference to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands was only brought under notice some time after the advertisements went to press and the additional expenditure that would have had to be incurred to change the advertisements was considered to be too great. The advertisements therefore remained unaltered and people who contacted the then Electoral Office were advised of the eligibility of persons from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Newfoundland was already covered in the advertisement by virtue of its being a Province of Canada. (Question No. 916) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) Are the 22 meat inspectors, suspended from duty in October 1982 following the issue of summonses relating to bribes, being paid (a) their normal salary or (b) any other salary; if so, (i) what amount per week and (ii) what is the legal basis for these payments. (2) Are any efforts being made to obtain alternative employment for them by the Public Service Board during their suspension; if so, what efforts; if not, why not. (3) In view of the Government's policy of 50 per cent cost recovery, are any payments included in the costs met by the industry or are the payments being met out of Consolidated Revenue. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Of the 22 meat inspectors suspended in October 1982 following the issue of sommonses relating to bribes 21 remain suspended from duty. The remaining inspector resigned in November 1982. Of those inspectors 20 have had normal salary restored on the ground of hardship. The weekly amounts involved are as follows: $415.27-1 officer; $395.27-11 officers; $375.27-1 officer; $335.39-7 officers. Payment of salary was approved in accordance with Section 63C (2) of the Public Service Act 1922. (2) The Department has examined the possibility of alternative employment, in both central and regional offices, during the suspension of these officers but has been unable to identify suitable work. The Public Service Board was approached for assistance but advised that because of the specialised nature of the officers work skills placement in another area of the service during suspension was not possible. (3) The Government's implementation of the existing 50 per cent recovery principle reflects the costs necessarily incurred by the Commonwealth in the provision of export inspection services. Any costs incurred by the Commonwealth in respect of suspended officers, who have not been provided with alternative employment, are included in determining the cost of export inspection. (Question No. 918) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on December 1983: Have there been either formal or informal consultations with the directors of Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Ltd regarding the proposed changes in funding arrangements for the company; if not, why not. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (Question No. 919) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has he either formally or informally instructed the Aboriginal Development Commission to take over control of Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd and Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Ltd; if so, (a) how and (b) when was the instruction given. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. (Question No. 920) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has he tabled his instruction to the Aboriginal Development Commission to take control of Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd and Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Ltd in accordance with sub-section 11 (3) of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act; if so, when; if not, why not. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No general direction has been given to the Aboriginal Development Commission under section 11 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980. (Question No. 929) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make, an application for Community Employment Program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a)No. (b) The following national proposals are currently being developed which will involve offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). The electorate of Murray has four offices of the CES: Identification of Migrants Registered with the CES-All metropolitan and selected country offices of the CES (OCES) will be surveyed to provide a national profile of migrants registered with the CES. Womens Outreach Officers-50 women will be employed as Outreach Officers in CES Offices in areas of high female unemployment to provide a referral service for women. Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers-30 Aboriginals will be employed in all States and the Northern Territory to work on breaking down the psychological and cultural barriers of remote Aboriginal communities to CES services. Employment and Training needs of Women in Remote and Fringe Aboriginal Communities-30 Aboriginal women (community workers) will be employed in all States and the Northern Territory, to visit remote communities to determine the training needs of the women and to aid them in developing requests for assistance. I will be providing details of any projects approved in the electorate of Murray to the honourable member in the normal manner. (Question No. 965) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7 December 1983 claiming that at least 6 African countries have their flag carrier airlines flying to South Africa; if so, is he able to say whether this is correct. (2) Is he able to say which airlines fly to South Africa; if so, what are the details. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes; I can confirm that the information supplied in the article is correct. (2) Commercial reference material available to my Department indicates that the following African airlines, other than South African Airlines, provide scheduled services to Jan Smuts Airport: Air Zimbabwe, Air Botswana, Air Malawi, Air Mauritius, Royal Swazi National Airways Corporation, Zambia Airways Corporation, Linhas Aereas de Mozambique (LAM), Lesotho Airways. (Question No. 968) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) Has the Government given detailed consideration to the implications for Australia of Article VI(a) of the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which requires that the designated member of the Board of Governors of the IAEA for each region, be the member country most advanced in the technology of atomic energy, including the production of source materials. (2) Has the Government obtained advice, in particular on (a) the effect on Australia's current status as a designated board member of the IAEA for the South East Asian and Pacific region of different scenarios for the development of Australian uranium mining and export over the next 2 decades, and (b) whether Australia stands to lose its Board membership in the event of the Government deciding to phase out uranium mining and export over the next 2 decades: if so, (i) could Australia secure its position under the provisions of Article VI(a) by increased research activity in such areas as waste disposal and medical nuclear technology and (ii) what country or countries in the region would be likely to displace Australia from the Board and what type of nuclear program would Australia need to pursue in coming years to secure its position as the most advanced country in the region. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Membership of the Board of Governors of the IAEA is determined by Article VI of the IAEA Statute. Amongst other things that article indicates that membership of the Board comprises: (1) As designated by the outgoing Board of Governors- (a) the nine member states most advanced in the technology of atomic energy including the production of source materials, (b) the member state most advanced in the technology of atomic energy including the production of source materials in each of the eight designated regional areas (identified in the statute) not represented by one of the nine most advanced; (2) 22 members elected by the General Conference in accordance with the criteria for regional representation provided for in the article. Since the inception of the IAEA in 1957 Australia, which is in the South East Asia and the Pacific region, has been designated rather than elected as a member of the Board. Membership of the IAEA Board of Governors has assisted Australia to play a prominent and constructive role in international consideration of issues relating to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including international safeguards. The Government will continue to give active support to the IAEA and its important task of verifying that the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy under IAEA safeguards does not lead to diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Australia's continued membership of the IAEA Board of Governors is seen by the Government as a valuable contribution to the work of the IAEA. It is also a major means by which Australia can advance non-proliferation goals in accordance with the Government' s very strongly held conviction that there should be no further spread of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices to additional countries. The Government has therefore given detailed consideration to the provisions of article VI of the statute of the IAEA and will continue to monitor international developments as they might affect Australia's designated position. While it would be inappropriate to speculate on possible future developments in this regard, Australia's role as a significant exporter of uranium is clearly of particular importance. The Slatyer inquiry is examining all aspects of Australia's involvement in the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle. That inquiry, and the examination of its outcome will necessarily include, inter alia, considerations of the sort raised in part (2) of the question. (Question No. 985) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Com- munications, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) What action is he taking to ensure that print handicapped radio is available to as many disadvantaged Australians as possible. (2) What are the current problems in achieving this aim. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government is acutely aware of the needs of handicapped people who cannot see, handle or comprehend the print media. This includes not only the blind and partially sighted, but also many of the aged and those who are illiterate. My Department is presently undertaking a review of Radio for the Print Handicapped (RPH) services with regard to their licensing, funding and future development in Australia. (2) There are two major problems associated with the development of RPH services throughout Australia- (a) For reasons associated with their special operating requirements, RPH services are presently licensed under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 and as such operate at low power over a restricted coverage area. (b) An expectation that RPH stations would be financially self-supporting has not been realised and has further inhibited their development. My Department is examining these issues very carefully to enable RPH services to be developed in such a way as to reach as many disadvantaged Australians as possible. (Question No. 993) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 December 1983 : (1) Has his attention been drawn to the editorial in the Age of 5 December 1983 ; if so, (a) is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is reorganising 1300 members of its staff, (b) is it a fact that there will salary increases for those 1300 staff members as a result of this reorganisation, (c) what is the (i) extent and (ii) range of these increases, (d) will staffing levels increase as a result of this reorganisation and (e) will any salary increases gained as a result of these changes disturb salary relativities within the ABC; if so, to what extent. (2) Has his attention been drawn to reported expressions of incredulity and mindlessness by the Government and some members of the new ABC Board at this proposal. (3) What steps will he take to ensure that the best interests of the public purse are safeguarded. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question based on information supplied by the ABC, is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. (b) A submission has been made by the ABC to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission requesting that a new salary scale be approved by an anomalies conference. If approved, most but not all of the 1300 staff involved would receive an increase. (c) (i) The salary structure being sought involves increases ranging from $20 to $700 per annum with 56 per cent of those affected gaining less than $400 per annum. (ii) Existing salary ranges are equivalent to the proposed new range but the intention is to produce four salary barriers, which will only be passed by successfully completing courses and having work skills assessed. (d) It is anticipated that less than 10 additional positions will be created. (e) The reorganisation will abolish existing relativities and create new positions which have no existing salary relativities. (2) No such expressions have been reported to me. (3) The steps being taken by the ABC are in accordance with procedures designed to ensure that legitimate salary claims are balanced against the need for restraint in wage claims to ensure that the present economic recovery is not endangered. (Question No. 998) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: Will he ask the Australian Embassy in Manila to monitor the operation of Australian companies in the Philippines to ensure that these companies comply with Philippine labour laws and with the standards of the International Labour Organisation; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australian companies operating as private commercial undertakings in a foreign country are subject, no less than private citizens, to the laws of that country. This is particularly so regarding laws framed to guarantee certain basic levels of observance of fundamental and universally recognised human rights. I am informed that in the Philippines, a wide ranging labor code seeks to perform this function in the area of industrial relations, supported by the operations of the Philippine Ministry of Labor and Employment. The enforcement of Philippine labour law is clearly an internal matter for the Philippine authorities. At the same time Australia's reputation regarding our commitment to observance of universally accepted standards of human rights and to conformity to the rule of national justice is an important aspect of the Government's foreign policy. Accordingly, the Australian Government maintains an interest in the activities of Australian companies in the Philippines. As evidence of this interest, I refer the honourable member to my reply to Senate question on notice no. 343 (Hansard, 3 November 1983, page 2242). With regard to the standards of the International Labour Organisation, the Philippines has ratified 21 ILO conventions. These include conventions covering workers compensation, a minimum age for industry, the abolition of forced labour , protection of wages, and the right to freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. Adhereance to these conventions is subject to regular monitoring by established machinery within the ILO itself. (Question No. 1033) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: Has his attention been drawn to proposals for amendment to the Antarctic Treaty to (a) promote observer participation in, and access to documents and information from, Treaty conferences (b) implement the 1983 Non-Aligned Movement resolution that the exploration of the Antarctic and the exploitation of its resources shall be carried out for the benefit of all mankind with global revenue-sharing which would place the area in a similar legal category to the high seas and seabeds and (c) establish a minerals regime to base any decision regarding minerals development on a high threshold standard of environmental impact assessment for Antarctica and under the Law of the Sea Convention; if so, is it the intention of the Government to pursue these proposals. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am not aware of any specific proposals for amendment to the Antarctic Treaty. However, Malaysia took the initiative both at the 1983 Non-Aligned Summit and at the United Nations General Assembly of challenging the Antarctic Treaty system, claiming principally that it was exclusive and secretive, and that the benefis of any resource exploitation in Antarctica should be shared amongst all mankind. The 38th session of the General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution calling upon the United Nations Secretary-General to prepare a comprehensive factual and objective study of all aspects of Antarctica, taking fully into account the Antarctic Treaty system and other relevant factors, and to report to the 39th session. Australia will cooperate in this study. It will argue strongly that the Antarctic Treaty system offers the best means of preserving the demilitarisation of the continent and of promoting international harmony and cooperation now and in the future. In regard to the specific questions raised:- (a) At the 12th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM XII) held in Canberra in September 1983, contracting parties which are not consultative parties were invited for the first time to attend as observers. The consultative meeting decided to encourage the widest possible circulation of information about Antarctic activities and to send the report of ATCM XII to the United Nations Secretary-General. (b) The Non-Aligned Summit resolution on Antarctica suggested that the exploration of the Antarctic and exploitation of its resources should be carried out for the benefit of all mankind. It made no reference to 'global revenue sharing'. Its operative section called for a comprehensive study of Antarctica by the United Nations Secretary-General which, following the 38th section of the United Nations General Assembly, is now in train. (c) Talks are in progress between Antarctic Treaty consultative parties aimed at producing a minerals agreement which would govern any future minerals prospecting, exploration and development in Antarctica. The minerals regime is to be developed in a way which will not prejudice the interest of all mankind. The talks are at an early stage. The Government considers that any minerals agreement must contain stringent environmental safeguards.