Thursday, 29 March 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mrs Child,Mr Hawker,Mr Millar and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposal to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a Special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Mr Cowan. 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 nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That we wish to express our deep concern for the health and welfare of Father Brian Gore, an Australian citizen, and a missionary priest in the Philippines, who is charged with murder, subversion, possession of explosives and of inciting rebellion, warrants of arrest for which were issued and served on the 18th October 1982. Your petitioners therefore pray that you do all in your power to urge the Philippines authorities to assist the plight of Father Gore and to help him to continue his missionary work without threat or fear of arrest; furthermore that Father Gore be allowed his right of legal advice and representation and of access at all times to his friends and religious colleagues. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That currently pharmaceutical companies are not automatically liable for damage or death caused by their products and individuals attempting to obtain just compensation from these companies are disadvantaged by having to take legal action against multinational corporations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. Appropriate legisation be formulated so that pharmaceutical companies are made automatically liable for damage or death caused by their products which will obviate the need for the adversary system in law. 2. Appropriate legislation be formulated to ensure open inquiry in cases of medical incompetence or negligence leading to death or injury. 3. Appropriate legislation be formulated to allow relatives or ''next friends'' access to medical records in cases of injury or death resulting from medical incompetence or negligence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That currently pharmaceutical companies are not automatically liable for damage or death caused by their products and that there are no statistics kept to determine whether or not drugs administered prior to death subsequently contributed to that death. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. The recording of prescribed pre-death medication on all death certificates. 2. The collection and publication of relative statistics. 3. Mandatory reporting by doctors to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (A .D.E.C.) or the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (A.D.R.A.C.). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth. That the current ''epidemic'' of adverse reactions to medical drugs (both prescription and over-the-counter) constitutes a severe health problem. The monitoring of such reactions is inadequate. There is a lack of awareness of the role of such drugs in causing disease. Consumers are confused by the large number of unnecessary brand names for the same drug. There is insufficient onus on drug companies to compensate the victims of adverse drug reactions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. That there should be- (a) Mandatory reporting of suspected drug reactions to the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (A.D.R.A.C.). (b) Recording of pre-death medication on death certificates. (c) Collection and publication of the resulting statistics. 2. That the labelling of drugs should include- (a) Generic (or chemical) names in place of brand names. (b) Warnings of recorded adverse reactions. 3. That Australia should seek uniform international surveillance of medical drugs. 4. That Pharmaceutical companies be made automatically liable for injury or death caused directly or indirectly by their products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show: That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people), will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redevelopment of the Brisbane Airport becomes operative, ensure that (i) no jet aircraft use the 32'14' crosswind runway; (ii) the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1 per cent of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other states. Without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and the State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80.00 per day in the other states. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled, should- Use its influence with Government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $40 per day) against insured Queenslanders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, parents and teachers working for and in the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: We support the Federal Government's determination to restore the community's confidence in public education. We support the Federal Government's opposition to base grants to ALL non government schools (a) by reducing funds to those schools already operating above community standards and (b) funding other schools according to need. We support the Federal Government's policy of negotiations and planning with State/Territory Governments regarding joint 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 Dr Everingham. To the Honourable Members of the Australian Federal Parliament. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change.' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That Australia's Meat Exports are being placed in an uncompetitive position by the imposition of substantial Export Meat inspection charges whilst Australia 's competitors receive free inspection plus considerable subsidies. 2. These charges are causing substantial loss of business for export abattoir operations and loss of jobs for the employees due to the disparity in inspection costs of export and non-export works arising from a 200 per cent increase in federal government charges at export works. 3. That immediate steps should be taken to end serious inquiry being done by these charges to export abattoir operators, their employees, live-stock producers and all others dependent of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will act to immediately suspend all export inspection charges for a period of three years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Australian Citizenship Act contains provisions for an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance, to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors. That the said Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: will ensure that the present Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained, and will strongly oppose any attempts to remove all references to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and any attempts to remove all references to The Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That Bozlin Pty Ltd trading as John Bozic Automotive Services, have provided for many years good and reliable service to customers near Parliament House, and represent the only Automotive Service Station available in the Parliamentary triangle, convenient to visitors and persons working at, or near Parliament House. That the National Capital Development Commission has indicated its intention to close the access road between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place. That access has existed in one form or another between Kaye Place and Coronation Drive for most of the last fifty five years, and in the judgment of petitioners that access road is convenient, and represents no traffic hazard. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the traffic link between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place is not closed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia are concerned that the Federal Government has callously ignored the severe problems of Australian post-school students in the 1983 Federal Budget. We are disillusioned with the following series of broken promises. (1) that an ALP Government will progressively increase the maximum TEAS benefit until it equates with the single unemployment benefit and then maintains the nexus; (2) that an ALP Government will progressively increase the TEAS family income means test until it equates with the average weekly earnings and then maintains the nexus; (3) that an ALP Government will remove the anomalies in the TEAS regulations and liberalise the definition of 'independence' which allows students to have their needs assessed separately from their parent's circumstances. We urge the government to honour these promises immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Morris. 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 Cohen and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol, alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. Petitions received. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Health for- (a) his introduction of a more expensive health program; (b) his blinkered support for a confusing and complicated health scheme; (c) condoning the lengthening queues for elective procedures; (d) deliberately provoking health providers in public and private hospitals, and (e) wanting to assume dictatorial control of all health systems and those that work in them, and (2) calls for his resignation. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) acknowledges the achievements in public education during the past 100 years at Portland, New South Wales, and (2) congratulates the staff, students and the Portland community for their untiring efforts in planning for the centenary celebrations on Saturday, 31 March 1984. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls that this Government promised only two days before the 5 March 1983 election that superannuation entitled of servicemen and women would not be reduced under a Labor Government and in particular that the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits would not be altered, and (2) recalls that the DFRDB lump sum superannuation did in fact attract a 30 per cent tax; (3) notes that the computation of retirement benefits changes to make allowances to meet the lump sum tax will result in lower fortnightly pensions for servicemen and women, and (4) condemns this Government for- (a) reducing Defence forward spending estimates by $160m for 1983-84; (b) disbanding the School Cadet Corps; (c) reducing the number of permanent armed service and reserve personnel, and (d) reducing steaming time for the Navy and flying time for the Air Force and prejudicing the present operational capability of the Australian Defence Force. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that this Government has undertaken major initiatives in housing including public housing; (b) that the previous Government allowed the stock of public housing to run down quite disastrously, and (c) the first home owners scheme has been a success in terms of stimulating the building industry and providing housing for people, and (2) urges the Government to- (a) continue funding of the first home owners scheme, and (b) expand funding for public housing. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the promise of the present Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign that a Labor Government would, inter alia, provide tax cuts for 99 per cent of the Australian community; (2) recalls the frequent claim of the Government that it was unable to keep its election promises because it inherited a projected Budget deficit of $9.6 billion; (3) notes the recent admission by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the deficit forecast used to break the Government's election promises was so illusory and meaningless that this year's deficit forecast will not be released, and (4) condemns not only the Government's double standards regarding the use of deficit forecasts but also its blatant breach of election undertakings. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) recalls the promise in the 1983 election campaign that a Labor Government would give high priority to tourism in Canberra and quickly upgrade Canberra Airport; (2) recalls the frequent claim of the Government that it was unable to keep its election promises because it inherited a projected Budget deficit of $9.6 billion, (3) notes the recent admission by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the deficit forecast used to break the Government's election promises was so illusory and meaningless that this year's deficit forecast will not be released, and (4) condemns not only the Government's double standards regarding the use of deficit forecasts but also its blatant breach of election undertakings. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the promise of the present Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign that a Labor Government would create a permanent adult migrant service and would transfer all full-time casual teachers to the permanent service; (2) recalls the frequent claim of the Government that it is unable to keep its election promises because it inherited a projected budget deficit of $9.6 billion; (3) notes the recent admission by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the deficit forecast used to break the Government's election promises was so illusory and meaningless that this year's deficit forecast will not be released, and (4) condemns not only the Government's double standards regarding the use of deficit forecasts but also its blatant breach of election undertakings. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that Australian workers and taxpayers have now contributed approximately $ 150 million to the Government by way of the Medicare Levy, and (b) that due to inadequate planning, severe deficiencies exist in the provision of Medicare services particularly in public hospitals; (2) condemns the Government for its immature approach to this particular planning process and for its reliance on the heavy hand of Government to achieve its own brand of concensus with the providers of essential services to the health industry, and (3) calls on the Government to immediately deliver its promise of a better and cheaper health care system for 90 per cent of Australians and universal cover for all Australians and to recognise that the current situation is yet another broken promise and to immediately reduce or remove the tax levy until the promise can be kept. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the promise of the present Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign that a Labor Government would provide increased funds in real terms for the ABC; (2) recalls the frequent claim of the Government that it was unable to keep its election promises because it inherited a projected budget deficit of $9.6 billion; (3) notes the recent admission by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the deficit forecast used to break the Government's election promises was so illusory and meaningless that this year's deficit forecast will not be released, and (4) condemns not only the Government's double standards regarding the use of deficit forecasts but also its blatant breach of election undertakings. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for- (a) his lack of interest in the environmental problems of Antarctica; (b) his failure to attend any of the sessions of the XII Consultative Meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations held in Canberra in September 1983; (c) his failure to assert within the Government, the need for additional funding to enable research into the Antarctic ecosystem; (d) his failure to reverse his Government's decision to withdraw from the research program SIBEX-1 in the Antarctic; and (2) notes with concern that the Government has failed to ratify the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic seals, signed in 1972. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the election promises of the Government for extensive increases in expenditure in the science and technology area, including the CSIRO, science research funding schemes and especially the ARGS, Antarctic research, the Landsat upgrade program, and others, which were not honoured in the 1983-84 Budget; (2) recalls that the Government has consistently claimed that it was unable to keep its election promises because it inherited a projected Budget deficit of $9 .6 billion; (3) draws attention again to the recent admission by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the deficit forecast at this stage of the year, and similarly at this stage in 1983 is so illusory and meaningless that the forecast for 1983-84 will not be released, and (4) condemns the Government for the breaches of its election promises on the basis of figures it now admits were spurious. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with grave concern the advice given by the Attorney-General that the High Court decision in the Tasmanian Dam case has established that the Commonwealth Government has power to control the contents of Australian print media; and (2) calls on the Government to take steps to renounce any such power. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Riverina will second: That this House calls on the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry to assure the House and Australia's 170,000 farmers that they will not be discriminated against in the banking system through a shortage of credit imposed by regulation of the bank, as stated on 28 March 1984 by Mr Ron Cameron, director of the Australian Bankers' Association. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Macarthur will second: That this House- (1) recognises the significant contribution made to the efficient delivery of legal services by the establishment of community based legal centres throughout Australia; (2) notes with approval the initiatives taken by the Illawarra Community Legal Centre Working Party to establish a community legal centre to service the Illawarra region of New South Wales; and (3) calls on the Legal Service Commission of New South Wales to provide the necessary funding to establish a legal centre in the Illawarra to serve the people of that region. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government and, in particular, the Minister for Transport for allowing the closure of the Adelaide to Victor Harbor railway line without at least making adequate arrangements for an alternative tourist train to operate on this extremely important tourist route; (2) notes that both Federal and State Labor Governments have agreed to the cessation of Australian National's operation of this line whereas the Federal Government and State Liberal governments did not agree to such a closure; (3) calls upon the Federal Government to take immediate action to ensure alternative tourist rail services are provided on this important and historic South Australian railway line which is of great significance to the south coast and Victor Harbor in particular. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and my colleague the honourable member for Lilley will second: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that of 84 people recently sacked by MBF in Brisbane, 50 have so far applied for jobs with Medicare; (b) that jobs in Medicare in Brisbane have been set aside for former private fund employees who have the standard skills for the jobs and who are prepared to work in those areas of Brisbane where those jobs are available; (c) that former private health fund employees who wish to seek employment with Medicare can do so by writing to the Personnel Manager, PO Box 9999, Brisbane; and (d) that the Brisbane sackings have affected employees of only one private health fund, that one being a fund which refused to partake in negotiations to set up transitional employment arrangements for health fund employees; and (2) condemns and rejects irresponsible claims to the effect that the Government was not adequately looking after sacked private fund employees. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with satisfaction the completion of the second free elections in El Salvador in three years, despite attempted terrorist intimidation of voters within El Salvador and an orchestrated leftist campaign to discredit the elections in the world at large; and (2) congratulates Dr Jose Napoleon Duarte of the Christian Democratic Party on his success in the elections. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the promise of the present Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign that a Labor government would totally fund the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway; (2) recalls the frequent claim of the Government that it was unable to keep its election promise because it inherited a projected Budget deficit of $9.6 billion ; (3) notes the recent admission by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the deficit forecast used to break the Government's election promises was so illusory and meaningless that this year's deficit forecast will not be released; (4) condemns not only the Government's double standards regarding the use of the deficit forecasts but also its blatant breach of election undertakings. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the promise of the present Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign that a Labor government would provide the maintenance of the real value of the general purpose grants to local government in line with the previous year 's allocation; (2) recalls the frequent claim of the Government that it was unable to keep its election promises because it inherited a projected Budget deficit of $9.6 billion; (3) notes the recent admission by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the deficit forecast used to break the Government's election promises was so illusory and meaningless that this year's deficit forecast will not be released; and (4) condemns not only the Government's double standard regarding the use of the deficit forecasts but also its blatant breach of its election undertakings, particularly in diminishing the 1983-84 local government allocation by $13m in comparison with the real value of the previous year's allocation. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the promise of the Government that nine out of 10 Australian families will, from 1 February 1984, actually pay less, or no more, for their basic medical and health insurance; (2) notes that government and private employed workers receiving remote area cost of living wage adjustments now pay a medical levy on these payments which are not adjusted for the increased cost of Medicare charges; (3) notes that previous private health insurance arrangements did not discriminate against remote area workers in this fashion, and (4) calls on the Government to act immediately to resolve this discriminatory practice. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the promise of the present Prime Minister in March 1983 that a Labor Government would improve the Australian economy; (2) notes that since that occasion inflation, unemployment and interest rates have gone down, labour force participation rates have gone up, agricultural and manufacturing output has increased and consumer confidence has reached an all time high since records were kept, and (3) congratulates the Government on the successful completion of its election undertaking. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) emphatically rejects the Attorney-General's interpretation of the case of R . v Migliorini and others (38ALR356); (2) notes that the Attorney-General had made no public statement whatsoever on Migliorini's case until it was raised in the Parliament by the honourable Member for Denison, and (3) further notes with satisfaction the admission by the Attorney-General that it is not the Government's position that the mere fact of evidence being illegally obtained in Australia means that it is inadmissible in court proceedings. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls the promises of the Government during the 1983 election campaign that upon election it would immediately implement a small business action program; (2) notes the Government has not implemented its taxation promises to small business or its small business action program, and (3) condemns the Government for its failure to recognise the importance of the small business sector in the Australian economy. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this Government- (1) condemns the use of living foetal tissue from aborted babies in medical research; and (2) condemns any reduction in the funds for the treatment of premature babies. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that the newly announced Kangaroo Pass Airfare from Sydney to Perth and return is $800; and (b) that the existing Apex fare for this journey is $450.30 and the existing Flexi fare is $381; and (2) condemns the Government for this $419 increase of 110 per cent. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling on Government business-- Mr Shipton —Mr Speaker, I have another notice of motion. Mr SPEAKER —I will be having a second look at some of the notices of motion that were given today. There were some deviations from the guidelines but I did not want to interrupt the members with the detail. If the honourable member for Higgins has another notice of motion I will allow him to give it. If the honourable member looks at the practice of the House he will see that members are generally asked to place a limit on the number of notices of motion they give. There is the alternative of handing them in writing to the Clerk. However, on this occasion I will give the honourable member the chance to give his third notice of motion. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I was on my feet; I have noted your comments. I could move many notices of motion on this air fare issue but I have chosen to move only two. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that the newly announced Kangaroo Pass Airfares from Melbourne to Perth and return is $500; and (b) that the existing Apex fare for this journey is $401.70 and the existing Flexi rate is $340; and (2) condemns the Government for this $160 fare increase of 47 per cent. [COGNATE BILL: TORRES STRAIT FISHERIES BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 28 March 1983, on motion by Mr Hayden: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! 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 Torres Strait Fisheries Bill 1983. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.28) —I will continue my speech which I commenced yesterday. Fishermen in waters beyond the protected zone and under the jurisdiction of the other country who breach the laws in any fishery not covered by a subsidiary arrangement may be prosecuted in that country's courts. The adoption of this Treaty in December 1978 by the governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea, after years of negotiation, has been a dramatic achievement. It is a unique treaty. It attempts to provide a workable solution to a complex situation. The Treaty deals with matters affecting the sovereign interests of both countries. The Treaty contains the framework for the resolution of special legal, moral and humanitarian problems that may arise. At the time the Treaty was concluded the governments of both Australia and Papua New Guinea regarded the Treaty as a fair and reasonable solution of such matters as the conflicting claims of the Queensland and Commonwealth governments , the traditional rights of the Torres Strait Islanders and the coastal people of Papua New Guinea and the allocation of the sea and seabed resources of Torres Strait. Public servants on each side of the negotiations laboured hard and long to determine a coherent sequence of historical record and to apply the relevant principles of the international law of the sea to a complex historical and geographical situation which has no parallel elsewhere in the world. Moreover, the Treaty could not have been concluded unless there had been friendly relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The continuation of this mutual good will will be essential to allow the Treaty to function smoothly . It is noteworthy that the Joint Committtee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), in its report on the Torres Strait Treaty recognised that the seabed resources line has the potential to become a major barrier between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The consequences of such a development would be disastrous for the Torres Strait Islands people. It should be recorded that the accomplishment of the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) in bringing the Treaty negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion deserves commendation, notwithstanding the obstruction and obdurate opposition of the Premier of Queensland. This Treaty owes much to the initiative of the former Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. E. G. Whitlam, who on 15 December 1972, wrote to the Premier of Queensland suggesting that discussions should commence between officials of the governments of Papua New Guinea, Queensland and Australia. Mr Bjelke-Petersen replied on 11 January 1973, that he could see no good purpose being served by such discussions. Mr Bjelke-Petersen continued to oppose the development of the Treaty virtually until the time it was signed in December 1978. Within the preamble of the Treaty the aspirations of the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments for this Treaty to help maintain the bonds of good and friendly neighbours, are fittingly encapsulated in these words: Recognising the importance of protecting the traditional way of life and livelihood of Australians who are Torres Strait Islanders and of Papua New Guineans who live in the coastal area of Papua New Guinea in and adjacent to the Torres Strait; Recognising also the importance of protecting the marine environment and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight for each other's vessels and aircraft in the Torres Strait area; Desiring also to co-operate with one another in that area in the conservation, management and sharing of fisheries resources and in regulating the exploration and exploitation of seabed mineral resources; As good neighbours and in a spirit of co-operation, friendship and goodwill. Have agreed as follows . . . We must never surrender our duty to honour these resolutions. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.32) —I am pleased to speak on the Torres Strait Treaty ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill which, as has been pointed out previously in the House, was negotiated by the former Government. I pay tribute to the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who is at the table, for the great efforts that he made in bringing about this Treaty for Australia and its relations with our near neighbour, Papua New Guinea. Mr Peacock —Thank you. You and I had to talk about it a lot though, didn't we? Mr SHIPTON —Yes. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comment because it shows that the Leader of the Opposition is a man of understanding. He negotiated with both the Queensland Government and the Government of Papua New Guinea. He took into account the views of people in the Parliament, including people on the back bench at the time. As has been said, the purpose of the Bill is to amend the existing Australian legislation covering many areas-fisheries, historic shipwrecks, migration, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, the Quarantine Act, the Wildlife Protection ( Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act, the Customs Act, the Coral Sea Islands Act and the continental shelf legislation-to enable the ratification of the 1978 Torres Strait Treaty. As my colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who is the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, said in the House yesterday, the passage of this legislation is an historic development in the constitutional history of Australia and, I add, the constitutional history of Papua New Guinea, because in Australia we have only one international territorial boundary and that boundary, which is defined in this Treaty, is between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The legislation that I have referred to defines the elements of the relationship which will govern the conduct of the relations between the two countries in practical matters in the Torres Strait, which is our closest border region with Papua New Guinea. The Treaty is a milestone in the history of Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea, our closest neighbour. I guess it is often forgotten how close it is. At low tide, at least one of those wonderful islands in the Torres Strait-the three closest islands to the Papua New Guinea border-is within walking distance and people come and go by canoe from the southern villages of Papua New Guinea. Regrettably, there are more motor boats than the lovely old, historical canoes. There is a lot of trade, barter and activity between the Torres Strait Islanders, who are, of course, citizens of Australia and resident in the State of Queensland, and the people of Papua New Guinea. It is worth remembering that the Treaty was negotiated by a sovereign government in Papua New Guinea with Australia, that it was not imposed on Papua New Guinea when Australia was the administering colonial power both of the old Territory and of the old League of Nations Trust Territory and that Australia, to its credit, gave Papua New Guinea independence as the former colonial power and then at arm's length negotiated the Treaty with Papua New Guinea. I think that some tribute needs to be paid to Papua New Guinea in this regard because it was a difficult and long negotiation which it handled and treated in a most serious and decent fashion. Tribute must also be paid to the Government of Queensland. I was disappointed that the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) criticised the Government of Queensland. I acknowledge his recognition of the work that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence did during the time that I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Territorial Boundaries. I will come to the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee in a minute, but I pay tribute to the State of Queensland because the islands of the Torres Strait are in the State of Queensland. It can easily be forgotten in Canberra that they are the front line of Australia in every sense of the word. I think it is a remarkable achievement on all fronts, particularly the way in which the Premier of Queensland and the Government of Queensland contributed to the debate. They had a proper point of view. They put that point of view. I met the Premier of Queensland when I was Chairman of the Parliamentary Sub- Committee. I must admit that I was most impressed with his position. I think that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence at that time recognised the view of the Government of Queensland. Of course the Torres Strait Islanders are not only citizens of Australia but also residents of the State of Queensland and have both an Australian and a Queensland point of view, and a valid point of view. I refer to the work of the Parliamentary Committee. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition, the former Foreign Minister, for the work that he did in achieving this most remarkable negotiation and bringing it to a conclusion. I pay tribute to the Papua New Guinea Government and to the Government of Queensland. But mention ought to be made, and I know that some honourable members have mentioned this previously in the debate, of the work of the Parliament. When I say the Parliament on this occasion I mean the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which comprises members from both sides of the Parliament, from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. I think that in this day and age far too much is made of the confrontation side of politics and that too little recognition is given to those areas where members of this Parliament, both of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, agree across frontiers in the interests of Australia. I think that the interests of Australia were important in this negotiation with Papua New Guinea of the Torres Strait Treaty. There was bipartisan agreement by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence at that time between members of the former Government and the then Opposition, which is now the Government. I think that the areas of agreement are the unsung stories of this Parliament. It is worth recalling that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence set up the Sub-Committee on Territorial Boundaries which looked at the question of the Torres Strait boundaries, heard evidence, made inquiries, visited the Torres Strait on a number of occasions and tabled a report in the Parliament on 9 November 1976. Following that the Sub-Committee was requested by the main Committee, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, to continue to monitor the issue of territorial borders between Australia and Papua New Guinea. That responsibility to monitor current developments on the issue of territorial borders between Australia and Papua New Guinea was formalised as a term of reference. The Parliamentary Committee played, I believe, a very significant role in the resolution of that boundary dispute between Australia and Papua New Guinea in the Torres Strait. That Committee was a way in which the Parliament could be informed of the views of the people living in the Torres Strait and of the Torres Strait Islanders. The Committee took evidence in the Torres Strait. Its members visited not only Thursday Island but also other islands of the Torres Strait. I can remember that members of the Sub-Committee were in a boat which hit a coral reef between Darnley and Murray Islands on one occasion. We wondered whether we were ever going to return to our electorates and to the Parliament of Australia. The Parliament of Australia and its members have a responsibility on such occasions to get the views of the people, in this case the views of the people of the Torres Strait and of the people of Queensland. It is interesting to note that in 1976 the Parliamentary Committee said that the Government should make every attempt to inform the Australian public of the terms and provisions of the Treaty, and that the Government did. The Committee also said that in the implementation of the Treaty the Government should ensure that the spirit as well as the terms of the Treaty were observed. I think that has been carried out in the negotiations by the former Government and the present Government. The Committee also said that Torres Strait Islanders should be involved in the administration of the Treaty, and that has occurred. Another important recommendation that the Committee made as a result of its inquiry in the Torres Strait was that control over illegal migration from Papua New Guinea to the Torres Strait be increased substantially and that, if practical, local Australians be employed to achieve this purpose. I am pleased to say that the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs took that matter up, and it is interesting to note that the Torres Strait legislation before us today involves amendments to the Migration Act. One must remember that it is always possible for people to enter this country illegally from the north, from Papua New Guinea. It is easy to go by canoe, by boat or even by aeroplane from the Papua New Guinea island of Daru and land on Thursday Island-no one would know you were there-and then catch the regular service south. That is a matter for concern and vigilance, which I am sure will continue. The Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee made a number of other recommendations about animal and plant quarantine procedures. It made recommendations about the exploitation of hydrocarbon deposits, if discovered in the area. It made recommendations about the right of all Torres Strait Islanders to practise their traditional subsistence fishing and said that that right should always be preserved. The Committee also stated that every encouragement should be given to Torres Strait Islanders to enter the commercial fishing industry, should they so desire. The final recommendation of the report was that the interests of the Torres Strait Islanders should always receive consideration by the Australian Government after the Treaty had been ratified and commenced to be implemented. The former Government took into account the views of the Torres Strait Islanders as represented to the Parliamentary Joint Committee and the views received directly as a result of a visit to the area by the former Prime Minister. I say to the present Government and to the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is in the House now, that I hope that, in the administration of this Treaty and this legislation, the interests of the Torres Strait Islanders will continue to receive consideration by the Australian Government, notwithstanding that the Treaty has been ratified and that the legislation has gone through the House, because there will always be the risk of something going wrong and the opportunity for something to go astray. The Torres Strait Islanders and their interests have to be remembered down here in Canberra. I have paid tribute to Papua New Guinea, to the Australian Government, to the former Australian Government and to the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee. The way in which the Parliament was involved in important negotiations between the executive government of the day and a third party, that is, another nation, is a tribute to the parliamentary committee system. I hope that the present Government will continue to see the role of parliamentary committees in that light. I pay tribute to the role of the Leader of the Opposition, a former Foreign Minister and one of Australia's most distinguished Foreign Ministers. This is one of Australia's most important treaties. I also pay tribute to those public servants involved, some of whom are in the gallery today serving the present Government. I pay tribute also to those public servants who have moved into other jobs in the Department of Foreign Affairs. There was a great effort and understanding of the issues in the Department of Foreign Affairs. From time to time, the people on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence had to put, perhaps, the view of the Torres Strait Islander to those officials. I pay tribute to those officials because it is only too easy to criticise officials and the bureaucracy, and I do that from time to time, when justified, and I will continue to do so. But tribute needs to be paid to the officials whom I knew, the officials who gave evidence to the Parliamentary Committee. I like to think that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, being a way in which the Parliament has an interface with the bureaucracy, had some influence over the Foreign Affairs officials negotiating the agreement. On the question of the future of the Torres Strait Islanders and the people of Torres Strait, I was disappointed in the Government's newly announced tourist air fares. The people of Torres Strait, of Thursday Island and the other islands of Saibai, Boigu and so on, Wednesday Island and Friday Island, will not have the opportunity that other Australians have to take advantage of the Kangaroo Pass air fares. I hope that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will intervene with the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) and with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) to see that the people of Torres Strait, the people of Queensland, have access and have the opportunity to take advantage of the so-called Kangaroo Pass air fares. One of the great problems facing the people of the Torres Strait is their isolation. I hope that this omission by the Government is not taken to be fulfilling the recommendation made by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, back in 1976, that the interests of the Torres Strait Islanders should always receive consideration by the Australian Government. In relation to the Government's new so-called cheaper air fares policy, it would seem that not only have the Torres Strait Islanders been forgotten, not only have they been denied the opportunity of going south from the islands-because one has to go by boat or by air; one cannot go by road, by bus, truck or car-but also they are denied the opportunity of cheaper fares for getting south. Similarly, other Australians are denied the opportunity of taking advantage of these so-called cheaper air fares and of visiting the wonderful islands of the Torres Strait and this great border area, and the opportunity of seeing and getting to know and to understand the people of Torres Strait. Thursday Island and the islands of Torres Strait are among the world's most beautiful spots and they have enormous tourism potential. I pay tribute again to the former Foreign Minister, the Leader of the Opposition. I pay tribute to the officials who negotiated this agreement, to the governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea which signed the Treaty, and to the work of the Parliamentary Committee. As I have said, the Opposition, on a bipartisan note, has supported this legislation, which was negotiated by the former Government and which is a remarkable achievement. In conclusion, I state that I wish for the continuance in the future of good relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(10.48) —The delimitation of maritime boundaries is one of the major areas of ocean law where disputes between countries occur with frequency and where the development of governing principles of law remains difficult. The signing in December 1978 by Australia and Papua New Guinea of the treaty concerning sovereignty and maritime boundaries in the area between the two countries, including the area known as Torres Strait, and the related matters, thus represents a significant achievement. Not only does the treaty indicate that direct negotiation can successfully resolve complex maritime boundary disputes, but it also contains several novel and significant features that may point the way to solutions elsewhere. Among the novel features are separate seabed and fishery jurisdiction lines, the establishment of a protected zone, and complex arrangements regarding the sharing of the catch of commercial fisheries. Although the treaty delimits a stretch of approximately 1,200 miles, from the Coral Sea, in the east, to the Arafura Sea, in the west, the most significant aspects of the Treaty relate to the Torres Strait area. In speaking today to the Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill, I am mindful of the future of the traditional inhabitants of the Torres Strait area, who have resided for generations on the islands in the Torres Strait. I am also mindful that many interests, including those of the Torres Strait Islanders, need to be taken into account and that not only the Commonwealth Government and particularly the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) but also the Minister's counterparts in the Queensland and Papua New Guinea governments will be consulted in the future. I am aware of the lengthy consultations that have already taken place not only at government level but also at a scientific level. The consultations between Australian and Papua New Guinea scientists in July 1981 and February 1983 were extremely useful and provided a basis for future management decisions. I will talk later about the future management of the Torres Strait fisheries, an issue which has been severely neglected in the past. It is as a result of this neglect that difficulties now exist within the fishing industries of this region of Australia. The Torres Strait area is a unique expanse located between Cape York at the northern extremity of Australia and the southern coast of Papua New Guinea. The area consists of a considerable number of islands, some large and inhabited and others amounting to no more than small rocks and uninhabited caves. They are all Australian, with the exception of one or two small islands close to the Papua New Guinea coast. As well as the special geographical features of the area, one of the major factors that had to be taken into account in devising solutions to the maritime delimitation problem was the need to protect the livelihood and lifestyle of the local inhabitants. The Papua New Guineans of the immediately adjacent area and the Torres Strait Islanders are ethnically distinct. The Islanders are themselves distinct from the Australian Aboriginal people. The local inhabitants still engage in many traditional activities which the Torres Strait Treaty, fortunately, has sought to preserve. I wish to deal with the areas within the Torres Strait to which I have just referred. Firstly, I refer to the top western group which includes the islands of Saibai, Dauan and Boigu. These are the islands closest to the New Guinea coastline. These islands are swampy mud islands, excepting Dauan, largely surrounded by extensive belts of mangroves. Mangrove fisheries for barramundi, salmon, catfish, mudcrabs and turtles are the major traditional fisheries. I move now to the mid-western group of Badu, Moa, Mabuiag. These large, dry continental islands have significant fisheries on the reef-pelagic fishing, turtles and lobsters. Dugongs are also taken. The central group, which consists of the York, Coconut, Stephen, Sue, Yam and other islands are coral cays. These form islands of which York is the focus of prawn trawling operations in the straits. These prawn trawling operations are not traditional fishing; they are in fact commercial fishing. Finally, the eastern group, that is, Murray and Darnley islands, are volcanic, hilly islands where gardens are the major traditional food source. Notwithstanding that, reef fish and turtles are an important part of the tradition. I made reference to them because traditional fishing is a very important part of the lifestyle of the Torres Strait Islander. As I have said previously, it is very important that they are protected within this Treaty. The Torres Strait Fisheries Bill will afford such protection. It is encouraging that consultations are presently taking place between the people of the Torres Strait and adjacent coastal areas and representatives of the commercial fishing industry. This consultation is necessary and it will be necessary for it to continue in the future. In this regard the setting up of the Torres Strait Joint Advisory Council under the provisions of the Treaty is to be commended. It is imperative that the people of the Torres Strait have a significant voice in the deliberations of that Council and that their input to the Council should be acted on by our Government. I wish now to speak to the amendment proposed by the Opposition for the omission from clause 39 of the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill of the words 'where it considers it appropriate to do so'. The Government opposes that amendment. The text of the Bill that is now before the House was arrived at after extensive negotiations with Queensland. Clause 39 was drafted in its present form on the understanding that the Joint Advisory Council would be consulted only on broad policy issues affecting the traditional inhabitants and on important matters which could not be easily resolved by other consultative processes. It was never -I emphasise that-intended that the three Islander members of the Joint Advisory Council would be consulted on day to day fisheries management matters handled by the Protected Zone Joint Authority. The proposed amendment would oblige the Joint Authority to consult with three Islander members of the Joint Advisory Council about every matter which the Joint Authority was considering that was likely to affect the Australian traditional inhabitants. Given the role of the Joint Advisory Council, this would be clearly impractical. In opposing that amendment I point out to members of the Opposition that the Joint Authority has power under clause 40(7) to establish advisory groups the membership of which may include Islander and commercial fishing industry representatives. It is envisaged that this will be the principal mechanism through which Islanders will be able to express their views to the Joint Authority on detailed fisheries management issues. Commonwealth and Queensland officials are already consulting with members of a consultative group. This consultative group already contains members of the Australian traditionalists. A similar consultative group exists for the commercial fishing industry. It is planned to continue and to build on these consultative arrangements once the Joint Authority commences operating to ensure that the interests of the Islanders in the commercial fishing industry are properly recognised and catered for. It is therefore necessary to leave clause 39 in its present form. The interests of the Australian traditionalist is well catered for in the provisions of clause 40(7). The fisheries provisions of the Treaty, which are now provided for in this legislation, oblige the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments firstly to protect the traditional way of life and lifestyle of the traditional inhabitants , including the traditional fishing, which is the principal purpose of the protected zone; secondly, to co-operate and consult with each other in the management and optimum utilisation of protected zone commercial fisheries, provided due protection is given to traditional fisheries; thirdly, to manage particular fisheries jointly if either the Australian or the Papua New Guinea Government considers this necessary; and, fourthly, to implement a complex catch sharing arrangement for protected zone commercial fisheries jointly managed by the two countries. This latter arrangement entitles Australian fishermen to 25 per cent by weight or value of the commercial catch of swimming or sedentary species in the protected zone north of the agreed fisheries or seabed jurisdiction lines respectively and gives Papua New Guinea fishermen a similar entitlement south of the lines. These provisions are set to come into force five years hence. Fifthly and finally, the fisheries provisions oblige the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments to protect and preserve the marine environment and the indigenous flora and fauna in and around the protected zone. Trawling operations in the Torres Strait are targeted on several species of tiger, endeavour and king prawns, which are trawled at night. The annual catch has been around 800 tonnes. There has been a sharp rise in the number of trawlers operating in recent years. Many operate for only a few months of the year. This increase has been brought about by reduced catches in the Gulf of Carpentaria and the East Coast. Concern at the number of trawlers has been expressed by the locals, trawlermen themselves, lobster divers and traditional fishermen. It is in this area that management can play a vital role. Previously trawlers sold much of their catch to processing plants on Thursday Island. But recently they have been selling to Cairns-based mother ships. The presence of mother ships has caused Thursday Island processors to close down and rely solely on processing rock lobster. In 1981, at the fishing industry's request, an area west of Warrior Reefs was closed to trawling by Commonwealth and Queensland authorities because of industry information that the area is a tiger prawn nursery ground. In November 1982 the Queensland Government closed to trawling the territorial waters of Saibai, Dauan, Boigu, Badu, Moa, Mabuiag, Sue, Yam and Poll Islands. It is to be hoped that continual monitoring of the commercial fisheries in the Torres Strait regions will see the future regulation of fishing in these areas, including the closing down of grounds, when it is deemed necessary. The continued co-operation of the governments, the industry and the Islanders is critical to the proper harvesting of the resources which include prawns, fish , pearl, rock lobster and certainly trochus. Much could be learned by consultation with local leaders such as Oza Bosun, Nelson Billy, the Chairman of Sue Island, Tabipa Mau, the Chairman at Dauan Island and George Mye, who is already a member of the consultative committee. They can play a constructive role in the future management of fisheries in this area. I know, from personal discussions with those whom I have mentioned as well as other locals, that the future of the region can be assured, but only with controlled and sensible management of the region. I refer now to the proposed amendment by the Government to the Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984.The sole purpose of this amendment is to delete Part III of that Bill. Part III amends the Coral Sea Island Acts 1969 to ensure that the boundaries of the Coral Sea Islands area do not overlap the proposed seabed line under the Torres Strait Treaty. Since the Bill was drafted a further agreement between Australia and the Solomon Islands has been negotiated and the boundaries of the Coral Sea Islands area will, as a result, require further modification. It is now proposed by the Government to amend the Coral Sea Islands Act in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No.1) 1984 to adjust the boundaries of the Coral Sea Islands area to ensure that those boundaries do not infringe any international agreement Australia has entered into or might later enter into. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), paid tribute to many people, including himself as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, for the part that they played in the initiation of negotiations and the final legislation which is before us. I would just like to say one thing: The initiation of these negotiations was undertaken by none other than Gough Whitlam. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(11.06) —I move: Page 2, lines 25 to 37, page 3, lines 1 to 44 and page 4, lines 1 to 36, omit Part III. Part III of the Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984 amends the Coral Sea Islands Act. It proposes altering the description of the line around the islands which constitute the Coral Sea Islands territory to take account of the Torres Strait Treaty and the Maritime Boundary Delimitation Treaty with France in respect of New Caledonia. The line merely defines which islands constitute the Coral Sea Islands territory. The territory does not include the waters between the islands. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has now devised a simplified way of drawing that line. Under his proposal it would not be necessary to redraw the line when the maritime boundary delimitation with the Solomon Islands is finalised. I have, therefore, moved this amendment to the Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill by the deletion of Part III . The simplified proposal of the Minister for Territories and Local Government will be incorporated instead in the next available Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr West)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 October 1983, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(11.10) —I move: Clause 39, page 26, lines 15 and 16, omit ', where it considers it appropriate to do so,'. As stated by the two speakers for the Opposition-the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who is the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, and the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton)-the Opposition supports this legislation. Basically it is legislation which was brought into being by the efforts of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) indicated that the initial work was done by a former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, but really the credit for the finalisation of the legislation quite rightly and properly belongs to the present Leader of the Opposition. We have indicated our support for this legislation. We believe that some fairly obvious difficulties will be encountered in trying to put the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill into operation. It is true, as previous speakers have indicated, that it is a highly complicated piece of legislation. It fundamentally lays down the conditions under which the Australian, Torres Strait Islander and Papua New Guinean fishermen may operate, along with quantities of catches that may be taken and details of how the catches are to be divided between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The complexity of the legislation can be judged from the conditions that are to apply to Australian islands situated on the Papua New Guinea side of the border. In these cases, any fish caught outside the three-mile perimeter of the islands will be shared 75 per cent by Papua New Guinea and 25 per cent by Australia. Fish caught within the three-mile radius will be shared on a 50-50 basis, but all seabed dwelling species will go 100 per cent to Australia. Therefore, a virtually impossible situation could arise with, for example, a trawler catch which is made up of seabed species as well as fish from other water levels. It is obvious that the intent of this legislation will be achieved only with the utmost co-operation of all the parties involved. In this respect I have to say that the Opposition has strong reservations about clause 39-I take on board the points made by the honourable member for Leichhardt, but I am not persuaded by his arguments-which indicates a reluctance even to involve the Torres Strait Island members of the Torres Strait Joint Advisory Council established under section 19 of the Torres Strait Treaty which causes us a great deal of concern. We believe that the Bill would be better if the Government accepted our amendment. We believe that it should be mandatory for the Protected Zone Joint Authority to seek the views of the Joint Advisory Council on all occasions where any matter arises which affects the interests of the traditional Australian inhabitants. As the legislation stands, clause 39 empowers the Authority to do this only where it considers it appropriate to do so. We believe that this is not good enough. Whilst the Bill as a whole is an excellent one, it appears to us that the acceptance of our amendment could make this Bill a far better and more practical one. The Opposition commends the right expressed in the Treaty of traditional inhabitants of both countries to undertake traditional fishing in the protected zone with a minimum of regulation and restriction, but there must be full and mandatory consultation. The effect of our amendment will guarantee the consultation which this Bill must provide if it is to work. I urge the Government to accept the amendment. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(11.15) —The Government opposes the amendment. The text of the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill was arrived at after extensive negotiations with Queensland. Clause 39 was drafted in its present form on the understanding that the Joint Advisory Council would be consulted only on broad policy issues affecting the traditional inhabitants and on important matters which could not be easily resolved by other consultative processes. It was never intended that the three Islander members of the Joint Advisory Council be consulted on day to day fisheries management matters handled by the Protected Zone Joint Authority. The amendment would oblige the Joint Authority to consult the three Islander members of the Joint Advisory Council about every matter which the Joint Authority was considering that was likely to affect the Australian traditional inhabitants. Given the role of the Joint Advisory Council, this would be clearly impractical. The Joint Authority has power under clause 40(7) to establish advisory groups, the membership of which may include Islander and commercial fishing industry representatives. It is envisaged that this will be the principal mechanism through which Islanders will be able to express their views to the Joint Authority on detailed fisheries management issues. Commonwealth and Queensland officials are already consulting with members of a consultative group formed by the Islanders themselves to discuss management of protected zone fisheries whether for traditional fishing or for commercial fishing. A similar consultative group exists for the commercial fishing industry . It is planned to continue and build on these consultative arrangements once the Joint Authority commences operating, to ensure that the interests of the Islanders and the commercial fishing industry are properly recognised and catered for. It is, therefore, necessary to leave clause 39 in its present form as it would be clearly inappropriate for the Protected Zone Joint Authority to consult the Joint Advisory Council on every matter under consideration by the Authority. For those reasons the Government cannot accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr West)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.20) —The Judiciary Amendment Bill 1984 is a Bill to amend the Judiciary Act 1903. Honourable members will be aware that the Judiciary Act is one of the important and foundational legislative provisions of this country, dealing as it does with such important matters as the original and appellate jurisdictions of the High Court, the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court generally and the removal of causes and other matters relating to the functions of the High Court. Of course, it is not restricted to that court but it is, shall we say, the charter subject to the Constitution which sets out how the Court is to conduct its business and what are the matters that come before the Court. Other matters of great importance are provided for in the Judiciary Act but I will not spend any time on those matters. I simply wish to make clear how important that Act is. We now have an amendment to the Judiciary Act. That amendment is made for a specific purpose. The purpose is to make as sure as possible that legal proceedings-that is criminal proceedings-brought in respect of what is known as the Sheraton Hotel raid are brought in a way and proceeded with in a way which protects the identity of those involved. The persons involved in that raid are well known in the sense that we know as a result of Mr Justice Hope's report into that incident that the persons concerned were members of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. We know the functions of that organisation are primarily the collection of foreign intelligence. Another function specified for that organisation is the maintenance of covert action capability for war time or other very special situations. It is because of the very special nature of the organisation, the very special nature of the task that members of that organisation have entrusted to them and the high risks that even membership of that organisation entails that Mr Justice Hope recommended that the names of those involved in the Sheraton Hotel raid be not disclosed. I am glad to say that the Government has accepted Mr Justice Hope 's recommendation. This brings me to the reason for the Bill which is now before the House. As I have indicated the purpose of that Bill is to ensure that in the prosecutions which are apparently to take place as a result of that raid- prosecutions for breach of Victorian criminal law-the names of the ASIS employees are not disclosed. I should have thought that that would be something that all honourable members would agree should not happen. That, of course, is the reason why the Bill is before the House. An agreement has been reached with the Victorian Government and complementary legislation is to be passed by that Government. The provisions of the Bill have been explained to the House in the second reading speech but I will spend one or two minutes going over them again. Effectively, what the Bill does is provide that, in the case of criminal proceedings arising out of the Sheraton Hotel raid, the court before which those proceedings are being heard-on the grounds that the making of an order is desirable in the interests of the national or international security of Australia or in the interests of the physical safety of the accused, or of a witness or of any other person-can, when it is of that view, make a number of orders the effect of which is to prevent the publication of material relating to the trial. Those orders include an order that the proceedings are to take place in a closed hearing; an order that a person, or a specified class of persons, is to be excluded from the whole of the proceedings or from part of the proceedings ; an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information with respect to the whole of the proceedings or part of the proceedings; an order prohibiting or restricting the publication of a report of or relating to the whole or part of the proceedings; an order for the purposes of ensuring that no person without the approval of the court has access, whether before, during or after the hearing of the proceedings, to any indictment, affidavit, exhibit or other document used in the proceedings or to the record of the court relating to the proceedings; or an order combining any two or more of the kinds of orders to which I have referred. Orders of that kind are most unusual in our society because it is of great importance-it is a general rule-that courts should be open to the public so that the public can see how justice is administered and so that the public can form its own views and make its own criticisms. Of course, here we are dealing with very special matters. No one is above the law. That must be so if our society is to exist as a democracy. Despite what is written by novelists such as Le Carre and Len Deighton-I say in passing that I am an addict to the works of both of those novelists-about secret organisations which may commit crimes against the law of this country and within the borders of this country, such organisations do not exist, nor should they exist, even though I am bound to say that the kinds of organisations of which Le Carre and Deighton write make life more interesting if one is relaxing in the evening. But it is a bedrock assumption that one assumes that no man is beyond the law, that no person is so high or so powerful that the law cannot reach that person down, put him into the dock and deal with him. So it should be. In the case of this Bill what is assumed is that orders will be made by the court hearing criminal proceedings in Victoria relating to the Sheraton Hotel raid. Of course, once complementary legislation is passed in Victoria, the court then having those powers within Victoria, a breach of an order made by the court would be subject to contempt proceedings by that court. As anybody knows who has had to argue for anybody on the receiving end of contempt proceedings, such proceedings can be very unpleasant indeed. Such a person can go to gaol or can be heavily fined. How is the order made by the Victorian court to be given effect to within the Commonwealth: that is, outside Victoria? Here we come to the purpose of the present Bill. Under the present Bill the Federal Court is given power to punish a contravention of an order made by the Victorian court as if a contravention or a failure to obey that order had been a contravention or a failure to obey an order made by the Federal Court. Effectively the Federal Court is to take over the role outside Victoria of implementing orders made by the Victorian court. That is good so far as it goes, subject always to the consideration that our courts as a general rule should be open. But there are very special reasons in this case why the criminal proceedings that are contemplated by the Victorian Government should not result in the disclosure of the names of the accused persons-by reason of the very special tasks that those persons carry out. I do appreciate that there are people in our society who believe that all intelligence organisations should be banned, and indeed some who believe that we should set a moral example to the rest of the world, including Soviet Russia, and that if we set a moral example and ban intelligence organisations and if other Western countries set moral examples and, for example, disarm unilaterally , the Soviet Union, which is highly regarded for its commitment to moral principles, will take heed and act accordingly. The graveyards of Russia are filled with moral examples. Stalin has put a good many millions of people there and so have his successors in title. So let us not get ourselves into the fairyland of believing that we live in a world which we do not live in. The world we live in, pleasant though it may be for many of us, pleasant though it is for people who sit around the House and engage in the kindly and comradely debates which characterise the way in which this House works, pleasant though it may be for the majority of people in this country, is for many harsh, brutal and brief. If we do not have the ways and means of maintaining our own security and if the West does not have the ways and means of maintaining its security the kind of parliament that we have will become an artifact of the past. Let us therefore start from the proposition-I am glad this Government does-that those who were concerned in the raid, no matter how stupid, ill-conceived and perfectly bizarre it may have been, should be protected from disclosure as members of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. How does the Government propose to deal with that matter? It has the Bill which is presently before the House, which is a one-off proposal. It differs from the proposal which was originally planned to be introduced by the Victorian Government and by this Parliament in that it applies only to the Sheraton raid. I have heard it said that it applies only to the Sheraton raid because of the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party of Australia in the Victorian Parliament. I read that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in another place said that this was merely indicative of the fact that the Liberal Party could not get its act together. I thought that was a good collectivist viewpoint. We in the Liberal Party are not collectivists; we do have different views on different matters, particularly on how justice should be administered and particularly on whether there are considerations for a one-off Bill or a Bill which has more general application. There are, I should have thought, sound reasons for introducing a Bill which has more than a one-off application. Indeed, these reasons were referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who presented to this House the second reading speech which was, of course, the same as the second reading speech given by the Attorney-General in the other place. He referred to a number of provisions of Acts of Parliament, both here and elsewhere, which have the effect of giving confidentiality to proceedings where, in the public interest, in the national interest or because of other and most compelling reasons, such as the need to safeguard the life of a witness, it was thought that restraints should be placed on the general rule that proceedings before courts should be open. The Attorney-General referred to the Official Secrets Act of the United Kingdom , to section 85B of the Crimes Act 1914 and to section 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Yet we have this somewhat bizarre proposal that this Bill should be restricted to one incident only. We do not believe that that is the proper way to approach this question. Whilst, as I have said, it is essential that as a general rule courts should be open, it is also obviously necessary that there must be exceptions to that rule. Those exceptions are best expressed in terms such as the terms which are expressed here, limited in general principle as they are to cases in which the security of Australia-whether in national or international terms-is in question, or cases in which the physical safety of the accused or of a witness or of any other person is in question. With those sorts of limitations on the ability to exercise the power reposed in the court, the decision must be made as to whether limitations of varying kinds should be placed on the access that can be given to the material before the courts, on the publication of that material or on other matters relating generally to what we might call an open or closed court system. It is bizarre and unnecessary to have a one-off proposal, particularly when one recalls that this proposal will go into the Judiciary Act. We have the quite extraordinary circumstance that that Act will be cluttered up with a separate part dealing with one incident. There is no reason to think that at other times there may not be other reasons for adopting a line such as that which the Government has adopted in this case. What are we going to have then? Are we going to have another Bill? Are we going to have separate Bills to deal with separate issues? Would it not be better, as I have said, to lay down the rules and to leave it to the courts to administer them? For those who do not trust the courts, let me ask : If we do not trust the courts to administer the law, who is going to administer the law? No one. Whilst I would be the last person to say that courts are always right-indeed I have been convinced of the wrongness of courts when my arguments have not been accepted-I would always be in the forefront of those who say that courts are the bedrock of our constitutional existence and of the democratic principles in which we all believe, although perhaps we would give effect to them in somewhat different ways according to our different political beliefs. Another problem with this Bill is that it is sunset legislation; it will expire two years after its commencement. I wonder whether those who drafted the Bill have ever had anything to do with criminal proceedings. Let me tell honourable members something about criminal proceedings. People do not like being convicted of crimes. That is the first point. The second point is that people who are convicted of crimes like even less the prospect of spending time breaking rocks in gaol. The third point is that their lawyers seek to make sure that they do not spend time breaking rocks in gaol, and frequently appeal. What could happen here is that criminal proceedings could be brought in the Victorian Supreme Court, or whichever court in Victoria would have jurisdiction in the case of the offences that are alleged against the ASIS operatives, and that trial could take quite a while. If any of the accused were convicted, unreasonable though we may think it to be, they might decide to appeal because they do not want to go to gaol. My experience has been that most people do not want to go to gaol. That appeal would go to the Victorian court of appeal and in special circumstances it could go to the High Court. The hearing of the proceedings could take a long time. It could take over two years before a final decision is given, by which time this Bill will have expired and the Government will have to come back to the Parliament with a new Bill to deal with precisely the same incident. If there is to be a fresh trial, as sometimes takes place as a result of appeals in criminal cases, I suppose we will have a new set of proceedings and this Part, in any event, would no longer be on foot. So it would be very much wiser, perhaps, if the draftsman had not been so attracted by sunset legislation-that very fashionable concept-and had thought through the consequences of a criminal trial of the kind that we are thinking about, of the kind that this Bill assumes. The Opposition, while it supports the Bill, does not support the limitation to which I have referred. An amendment will be circulated in my name which we will put to the House. There are one or two other matters that I would like to ask the Minister to give his attention to when he deals with the matter in the Committee stage. It is the Government's intention that there should be no disclosure of the names of the ASIS operatives. That intention is sought to be given effect to by this Bill . There are, I believe, members of the Victorian legislature who take the view that there should be no such animal as ASIS and that the names of ASIS operatives should not be kept confidential. I may be wrong in that belief, but I do believe there are members of the Victorian legislature of that view. Is it the intention of the Government, therefore, in pursuit of its objective to safeguard the identities of its own employees that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should also apply to members of the Victorian legislature? If it is not, of course, it is open to members of that legislature to breach with impunity the intent of this Bill and to reveal to the world at large the identities of the ASIS operatives through the medium of the forum of Parliament. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.43) —The latest newspapers from the United Kingdom in the Parliamentary Library have a very startling front page story that a young typist in the Civil Service was gaoled for six months for handing to the Guardian newspaper documents relating to the arrival of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom. The severity of the sentence has created quite a sensation in that country. But this question of security is a problem for all Western democracies. I was impressed by some comments made in the Franks Report of the Committee on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 which was presented to the United Kingdom Parliament in September 1972. In particular, in the chapter dealing with secrecy in its wider context, the report states: A totalitarian government finds it easy to maintain secrecy. The report continues: A democratic government, however, though it must compete with these other types of organisation, has a task which is complicated by its obligations to the people. It needs the trust of the governed. It cannot use the plea of secrecy to hide from the people its basic aims. On the contrary it must explain these aims: it must provide the justification for them and give the facts both for and against a selected course of action. Nor must such information be provided only at one level and through one means of communication. A government which pursues secret aims, or which operates in greater secrecy than the effective conduct of its proper functions requires, or which turns information services into propaganda agencies, will lose the trust of the people. I think that this small extract from the Franks report epitomises the dilemma which this Government faced after the unfortunate and rather extraordinary incident at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne on 30 November 1983. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech spoke about the exercise. He did not mention the fact that there has been a generous settlement to the hotel. By the end of his second reading speech the Minister had made it quite clear that the Government was acting on the advice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) which has been confirmed by Mr Justice Hope, the Royal Commissioner. The Judiciary Amendment Bill took me back to a basic legal text which is studied by all students of law in our nation; that is, the Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution by A.V. Dicey. Under the section on 'the rule of law', Dicey makes this point: . . . every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. What is proposed today in the Bill before the House is to make the employees of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service not subject to the ordinary law of the realm. Those people will have the advantage of a possible order suppressing publication of their names. Dicey's work stresses also the notion of freedom of the Press, the right of the Press to publish information, to publish without fear or favour. It is, of course, the Press that will be restricted from publishing any of the material that is put before the court, particularly in relation to the defendants' names and addresses, if an order is made. The difficulty with this point, for me, is that many of my constituents who have been brought before petty sessions courts have, to their distress, found their names published in a local paper. I am told that in country areas of Australia local newspapers regularly publish names of, perhaps, first offenders who have been convicted, even if they have been put on a bond, or persons who are involved in coronial inquiries. In New South Wales there was an Act known as the Female First Offenders Act which prevented the publication of the names of female first offenders. That legislation, in our age of equality, was repealed. But there is a tradition that justice must not only be done but also must be seen to be done. One can understand that justice can be seen to be done only if the names and, perhaps, addresses of persons charged with and convicted of offences are available to the public and for public scrutiny. The Bill will enable the court, the presiding magistrate or judge to make an order for a closed court for a number of reasons to exclude persons from the hearing, to prohibit the disclosure of information, and so forth. It is set out in some detail in the Bill and also the points were canvassed by the Minister in his second reading speech. The legislation has a sunset clause-an unfortunate term-which means that it expires after two years. It is a one-off situation. The Opposition opposes this notion. It is the Government's intention to ask the House to reject the amendment proposed by the Opposition. It is the Government's belief that there will be no repetition of the unfortunate incident which occurred in the Sheraton Hotel. There is no earlier precedent. The previous Government was never called upon to bring in any such legislation. We trust that the good sense and the maturity of our security personnel and of the people running security services in Australia will carry the day. Another reason for rejecting the amendment is that the Victorian Government has co-operated on the basis of the legislation that is before the House now, and not on some sort of amended legislation which the Opposition is bringing forward in this chamber today. The security services in our nation are under review and under very close scrutiny. I trust that the House will reject the amendment proposed by the Opposition. In my opinion there is a great need for security services in our land. Unfortunately, in recent years we have had many international terrorist acts brought to our doorstep. We all remember with sadness the assassination of the Turkish Ambassador in our country. We remember with horror the Hilton bombing and the bombing of the Israeli Embassy. Not so very long ago a fire burnt out a Lebanese newspaper and printing press in Sydney. Over the years there have been many instances of para-military organisations forming in this country, of groups training for all sorts of armed insurrection, mainly overseas. Some were groups without any real threat to society such as the New Guard, an organisation in Sydney which was opposed to Jack Lang, a former well-known Labor Premier. Fortunately this organisation was composed of and led by people with good sense and nothing untoward happened. But unfortunately other organisations have existed in our country and their activities have resulted in criminal proceedings, prosecutions and convictions. Our Asian neighbours, the countries in our region which look to Australia for precedents, advice and guidelines, are watching how we handle the embarrassing crisis and problem which arose out of the ASIS affair. These nations, these new countries on our doorstep-some of which I visited last year as a member of a parliamentary delegation-have a real problem in developing their own security services, services which are not working at the behest of any particular political party but in the interests of the people and of the parliament. These nations are watching how this Government handles this situation. I believe that they will certainly be impressed by the fact that the Government is bringing in this legislation for a short period only to protect the personnel who were involved in the raid. An order of the court to suppress the names of the personnel involved may be made for a number of very desirable reasons. One is, of course, that the order is made in the interests of the national or international security of Australia. Another ground on which an order may be made suppressing the names of the personnel involved is the interests of the physical safety of the accused. That is of great significance to me. If, by publication of the names of people who are charged and convicted of some offence, it means that their lives may be at risk or their physical safety may be threatened, I think that is a very good reason for restricting the publication of such material. There are other reasons set forth in the Bill, but the main reasons are that the national and international security of our nation may be at risk. The Opposition wishes to have this section of the Judiciary Amendment Bill, when it is passed and included in the Act, retained there for posterity. There have been instances which we can all remember where national security was dealt with on a basis of hysteria. One needs only to look back to the time before 1972 , when the Labor Opposition was pressing for independence in Papua New Guinea, at the quite extraordinary attitude taken by the Government of the day in relation to that matter, and at the accusations made against the Labor Opposition at that time-although they were always cloaked in the respectability of concern for national security-that we were acting in an irresponsible way. Of course, with the viability of Papua New Guinea and the emergence of this very strong, independent nation, it has been shown that the Australian Labor Party was right in relation to giving independence to that land and that there was no threat to national security. But it is an area in which there was hysteria. I believe that it is a reason why this legislation should be able to fade away after two years. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) made the point that members of the Victorian Parliament will not be bound by the legislation and may mention the names of the accused in the Victorian Parliament. Be that as it may, that is caught up in the complicated problems which arise from the original Bill of Rights which gave parliamentarians the right to freedom of speech. Victoria is a sovereign State and has a sovereign Parliament. For my part, I cannot see how this Parliament can ever restrain a member of the Victorian Parliament from exercising his or her freedom of speech in parliament. The various solicitors- general in New South Wales and in the Commonwealth have been debating this matter backwards and forwards, but it is an issue in which one trusts that good sense and fair play will apply, particularly as Mr Justice Hope and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) have said that there are some very serious reasons why these names should be suppressed. The Bill proposes that these reasons must be for the protection of the national or international security of Australia or in the interests of the physical safety of the accused. One trusts that members of parliament will take cognisance of these reasons. The legislation draws attention to the whole problem of freedom of information, the problems of secrecy within the Public Service and, for me, the very important suggestions made in recent publications by Richard Hall, the well- known writer, about the need for Parliament to scrutinise the running of our security services and for these services to be subject to supervision by a standing committee of the Parliament, as happens in the United States of America . However that is somewhat outside the scope of this legislation. I am pleased to support the legislation and call upon the House to reject the Opposition's amendment. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.58) —The consequences flowing from what is now called the 'Sheraton Hotel raid' on 30 November last year are many and varied, not the least for those trainees who took part and their supervisors and the then head of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, John Ryan. More pertinently it has raised a number of questions of law and of security for this Parliament to concern itself with. It appears to me that the issue is a fairly simple one and can be succinctly summarised. The issue is that there is no question whatsoever that nobody is above the law. Should the Victorian Attorney-General accept that a prima facie case has been made against those who participated on 30 November, they ought to face a court. It is not for this Parliament, just as it is not for the Victorian Attorney-General, to determine their guilt or otherwise. But it is a matter for the Attorney-General whether or not they should first face court. The question then becomes whether or not their names ought to be made public in the normal course of events. That is the issue. I repeat: The issue is whether or not, in the interests of national security and foreign relations, those who participated in the ASIS raid ought to have their names broadcast throughout this country and, of course, known to interested persons and agencies in other countries. Therefore, I join with the Parliament in supporting this legislation which will have the effect of allowing the Victorian Attorney-General to apply for an order at a subsequent court hearing that all or part of the proceedings be held in camera. Of course, I hasten to add that it is not a decision of the Attorney-General or the Parliament that the proceedings be held in camera. They may apply for an order. The legislation before the House will amend the Judiciary Act 1903 to make valid Victorian legislation which will provide that either the Commonwealth Attorney-General or the Victorian Attorney-General may apply for an order that all or part of the proceedings be held in camera so that the names of the arraigned persons not be made public. In essence the Bill makes it an offence enforceable in the Federal Court for a person not to comply with an order made by any court on national security grounds either on the basis that the proceedings be held in closed session or on the basis that the publication of information or evidence concerning those present during the proceedings be prohibited. The Bill, when enacted, will cease to have effect after two years. As I said earlier, nobody is above the law and the issue is not whether those who participated in the Sheraton Hotel raid ought to appear before a court. It is whether or not those persons' names should be a matter of public record. There are a number of precedents both overseas and in Australia for a parliament enacting legislation which will allow the presiding court to determine whether or not names ought to be made public. In the United Kingdom there is the Official Secrets Act 1920. In Australia we have section 85B of the Crimes Act 1904 which gives judges and magistrates within the Federal jurisdiction power to make orders similar to those in the Bill before the House this morning. Furthermore, we also have within the Federal jurisdiction section 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 which gives that Court the power at any time during or even after the hearing to make orders forbidding the publication of evidence or the names of any party or witness. So, this Parliament has on prior occasions concerned itself with the question of confidentiality of proceedings in a court. Clearly it is a difficult matter, and a matter which the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), the previous speaker, raised. He gave examples from his electorate of petty offenders, to use the vernacular, having their names published in the local newspaper, thereby suffering on many occasions great social embarrassment and even humiliation. As a solicitor in a country area prior to entering the Parliament, I appeared many times within the Magistrates Court jurisdiction and often found that my clients' names were published in local newspapers. Of course, I suggest that the consequences of that are far more severe in many cases for rural dwellers than for urban dwellers because rural communities are far more closely knit and rural people tend to show more interest in the affairs of their neighbours. It was always my belief that the public humiliation was regrettable and in many cases far outweighed the penalty for the offence the person committed. Most distressing were the occasions when young people who may have been placed on a bond by the court for a criminal offence had their names published, even though being placed on a good behaviour bond has the effect of wiping the record clean if no further matter is brought before the court. That was always a matter of concern to me. As a matter of philosophy I support on balance the principle that the Press have open and free access to courts. It is a matter for the Press, not the courts, to decide whether or not it is believed that the publication of names in the normal course of events is far too severe a censure. However, that is not the case here because at stake here are issues of national security and indeed issues which go to the very heart of our foreign relations. For that reason it is proper and correct that this Parliament concern itself with the question of whether to introduce confidentiality proceedings in regard to the ASIS raid. Certainly Justice Hope in his report on the Sheraton Hotel incident concludes that the names of those participants ought not to be revealed. He based that finding on his assessment of the consequences for foreign relations and national security which would inevitably follow from the publication of their names. He relied in part on a statement from the Foreign Affairs Department about such consequences. However, we do not have the advantage of perusing that statement as it has not been published. Justice Hope again decided that not to publish it would far outweigh the advantages to be gained from its publication. Furthermore, we may make a judgment as to the behaviour of the participants on that night but we do not make an assessment of their guilt or otherwise. That is properly a matter for the courts. For instance, Justice Hope accepts that a certain amount of realism in an exercise such as was undertaken is desirable, but of course he concludes that excesses in conduct committed during the exercise were attributable to the desire to achieve greater realism. He further finds that that desire to achieve greater realism was not reasonable and exceeded the bounds of desirability. Justice Hope isolates four separate incidents in which the striving for realism went too far: Firstly, the breaking of the hotel door with a sledgehammer; secondly, the attempt to restrain the hotel manager who wandered on to the exercise; thirdly, the carriage of arms by three of the trainees; fourthly, the display of those arms to the people on the ground floor of the hotel when the trainees were escaping. Indeed, I quote from Justice Hope's report. He finds thus: The worst feature of the incident was the threatening of the people in the hotel foyer and kitchen with the guns carried by the trainees. This part of the incident was unintended and occurred when the trainees were confronted with an unexpected situation and were without their leader. I have no hesitation in joining with Justice Hope in finding that the behaviour was unreasonable and offended against acceptable community standards of how we expect our security forces to behave when undertaking exercises within our own country. But guilt is a matter for the courts, and I am somewhat concerned by some of the public statements that have followed from that incident whereby it is assumed already that those participants are guilty at law. They certainly are not. I have some further concerns following the incident. I refer specifically to the inflated remarks made by Senator Primmer in the other place in regard to the then head of ASIS, Mr John Ryan. His remarks on Mr Ryan were savage and inflammatory and offended against any standard which a member of this Parliament ought to adopt. It was one of the worst examples, and I unhesitatingly condemn the senator for those cowardly and unjustified remarks. I go so far as to suggest that most members of this place would join with me in that criticism. The members of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service are, of course, concerned with compiling intelligence. The importance of their role can hardly be overstated. We live in an uncertain world. Whether we like it or not, that is a fact, and there is a need at all times to ensure security. These people at many times work under a degree of high risk and make a number of personal sacrifices. They therefore deserve this Government's support and the Parliament' s support wherever possible. That is not to say that at any stage I or members of the Opposition would suggest that they are above the law and ought not to be brought before the courts if a prima facie case of their breaching Australian laws can be made out. That is certainly not the argument. The argument is that because of the nature of their work and because of the consequences which would flow from their names being made public, this legislation introducing confidentiality provisions into the Judiciary Act ought to be permitted to proceed. I am concerned that the names of those participants may be revealed in the Victorian Parliament. I would condemn that. I would advise those who are considering the matter against that course of action in the strongest possible terms. Mr Justice Hope and the Department of Foreign Affairs have concluded that Australia's interests and national security would be injured by that course of action. The role of ASIS and other security organisations is a matter of debate within the Australian Labor Party at present and is certain to become a heated issue at the July conference. I suggest that members of the Labor Party take into account and remember at all times the acts of terrorism which have occurred in Australia over the past few years and which have involved loss of life and extensive damage to property. I refer, of course, to the tragic events of the Hilton bombing, the assassination of a Turkish diplomat, and the recent bombing of the Israeli diplomatic office. The Government must at all times bear in mind that Australia is not isolated from the ever-increasing problem of terrorism throughout the world, terrorism which seeks to make unstable and to render less effective the working democracies of the Western world. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(12.12) —I rise to support the Judiciary Amendment Bill and to oppose the amendments. It always gives me pleasure in a debate to speak after the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) because I always appreciate the care with which he produces his arguments. I was very surprised to hear his confession this morning that he loses some cases. Mr Spender —We do have some misguided judges. Mr BLANCHARD —I see. We have some interests in common, because apparently we both enjoy Le Carre. But I am sure that the honourable member for North Sydney would agree with me that Le Carre would find it very difficult to produce a scenario as weird and as unusual as that which unfolded in November last year at the Sheraton Hotel. It is because of that episode that this Bill is now before the House. The Bill is designed to amend the Judiciary Act 1903 to provide for the enforcement throughout Australia of orders for confidentiality in relation to certain criminal proceedings made by Victorian courts on grounds relating to the national or international security of Australia. As has been mentioned by other speakers, the Bill has a sunset clause which limits its application to a period of two years. I shall attempt to answer the arguments put up by the amendments as to whether or not the Bill should be a one-off measure or should have general application. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, this Bill is the direct result of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service fiasco which occurred on 30 Novembr 1983. Without going into the details of that disgraceful and apparently expensive operation-as those have already been outlined by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran)-it is clear that that operation should never have been allowed. But it is because of that operation, as I said earlier, that the Bill provides a back-up for Victorian legislation, and that legislation is designed to enable in camera hearings in relation to the charges arising from the episode. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), in his second reading speech, stated, inter alia: On the advice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, confirmed by Mr Justice Hope , the Government considers that there are very strong grounds for believing that the publication of the names of some, if not all, of these persons in the ordinary course of criminal proceedings, would be prejudicial to the national or international security of Australia. As a person concerned, over a number of years, with civil liberties, I find myself supporting this Bill with, I must confess, a certain degree of reluctance . However, this reluctance has been lessened with the appreciation that the Bill is limited in scope and limited in time. The term 'court' is limited to meaning a court of Victoria and includes a judge, a magistrate or a justice of the peace of such a court. The Bill is also limited in time by the sunset clause to two years. Mr Justice Hope in his report, at paragraph 6.6 on page 70, stated inter alia: Special problems arise in relation to the disclosure of the name of the persons involved in the Sheraton Hotel incident which are the subject of additional considerations. During the course of my inquiry the Department of Foreign Affairs provided me with a statement about the consequences for foreign relations and national security of disclosure of the names. He then went on to say that the consequences were summarised in appendix VI. Unfortunately, that appendix VI is not for general publication. Like so many other members, I do not know the reasons which were outlined to support the arguments for suppression. Mr Justice Hope was obviously satisfied that the disclosure of the names would be likely to have the consequences claimed by the Department. It is quite clear that he made an examination of the possible breaches of laws which may be applicable to this instant but has taken the view that any decision on prosecution should rest with the appropriate responsible authorities. Of course, the appropriate responsible authorities happen to be the Victorian legal authorities. As a result, on 29 February 1984 the Victorian Government introduced into the State Parliament the Criminal Proceedings Bill 1984. This Bill proposes to specifically empower the courts of that State to make certain orders for confidentiality in relation to criminal proceedings arising out of the Sheraton Hotel incident. The Judiciary Amendment Bill complements the legislation, as I will explain in my subsequent comments. It is important to note that section 85B of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Gippsland, provides that in proceedings before a Federal court or a court exercising Federal jurisdiction an order may be made prohibiting publication of the whole or a specified part of the proceedings. Offences involving national security personnel in their capacity as such would most usually be expected to contravene Federal legislation. What is unique about the Sheraton Hotel incident is that criminal proceedings under Victorian State law raised national security considerations. Thus, whilst the Victorian Government can legislate to permit State courts to make a confidentiality order on those grounds, this is binding only within the State of Victoria. This is the raison d'etre for the legislation presently before the House. I have mentioned section 85B of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 as having powers similar to those being sought in this Bill. There are other precedents. For example, the United Kingdom Official Secrets Act 1920 has been used by British governments of different political views in some of the more major treason trials in Britain. Of course, there is an argument between those who believe that criminal proceedings involving issues of security should be heard under the protection of comprehensive secrecy provisions and that such provisions should be part of the law, and those who argue that if we have to have confidentiality it should be confined to the particular case. There are also those who argue that confidentiality should be avoided at all costs. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and the honourable member for Gippsland have rightly pointed out the adverse effect, from their own experience, of the publication of names of people appearing in the lower courts. Whilst I can understand and sympathise with the arguments of those who adopt the latter position-that is, that confidentiality should be avoided at all costs -it is a position which cannot be sustained. We all know that there are occasions when confidentiality is appropriate. This is recognised in both the juvenile and the Family Court jurisdictions in Australia. I consider that the case of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service fiasco, however, comes within the area in which confidentiality must be observed because of the national and, apparently, the international significance behind the disclosure of the names. It is therefore appropriate to indicate to the House that whilst I have some reservations about the purport of the Bill I do not think that the amendments will meet the purpose that they are intended to serve. The argument has been put by the honourable member for North Sydney that the sunset clause will create some confusion. He has rightly pointed out to the House that this can be brought about because of the lengthy time delays that occur in the processes of law. But this, I argue, is not a case for throwing out the baby with the bath water. The important objective of this Bill is to protect the names of those who could suffer as a result of the divulging of those names. Therefore I support the Bill and oppose the amendments. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.25) —in reply-I thank honourable members for their contribution. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), in leading for the Opposition, raised the question of the position of members of the Victorian Parliament if they named Australian Secret Intelligence Service participants in that Parliament. It is a very appropriate question and it cannot be easily answered. One has to rely on the aspect of national security. It would be quite outrageous if a member of parliament did it just for the sake of doing it, thereby jeopardising both security and the lives of the individuals involved. That is how serious the matter is. In other words, it is not just a matter of a member of parliament having the unfettered right to say what he thinks. Nobody would deny that a member of parliament has that right , but he does not have the unfettered right to guarantee that somebody else loses his life. I do not think that that can be accepted. Nevertheless, Parliament being what it is, what has happened is a very exceptional case. In fairness to the honourable member for North Sydney, who raised the issue, I am reminded that recently this matter was raised in the South Australian Parliament. Apparently, a joint opinion was obtained from the Federal Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Solicitor-General. The matter that the honourable gentleman has raised is perhaps a weakness in the Bill. I am advised that the acting Crown Solicitor stated that the present Bill would appear not to affect the privilege of State parliaments but cautioned that because of the complexity and uncertainty of the constitutional issues it is not possible to be categorical on this point. There is the view that once the individuals are named it is a bit late to try to test it; it would be too late for the safety of the people involved and the security of the nation. The opinion given last year states: Certainly, if Federal law is to have such an application, the power supporting it would need to be commensurate with its effect. One example of how Federal law might have an overriding effect in the context of matters prejudicial to the defence and safety of the country in times of war; and, I would read into that, in times of peace where national security and the safety of personnel are involved- in our view a law which forbade a person, whether in Parliament or not, to make public the position of a convoy at sea and thereby to expose those manning it to the risk of death by enemy action, would be a valid law. So we get a balance in that a defence power may be extended to cover all exigencies. In summary, the opinion states that section 49 of the Constitution requires an express declaration for legislation to affect the privilege of the Commonwealth Parliament. No such declaration is in this Bill. Even so, this does not negate the possible effect on State parliamentary privilege. However, given the conclusion of the case which was the subject of the opinion, I feel that although the parliamentarian might not be affected, the media could be. That might be where we can leave that matter. I am advised that during the second reading debate the honourable member for North Sydney said that the two- year sunset period was too short for a possible retrial and appeal. I am advised that this period reflects the provision of the Victorian legislation. The judgment is primarily a matter for the Victorian Parliament. The proceedings are , after all, Victorian proceedings. Again the honourable gentleman argued that the Judiciary Act is of general application and that the amendments are out of place in the Bill. I am advised that the Act is a general one. The view of the Attorney-General is that that in itself is no reason for not making special provision because this is such an exceptional case. I thank the honourable gentleman for his contribution. I think we now need to go into Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.32) —I move: Clause 3, page 2, line 5-8, omit from the definition of 'proceedings' all words after 'proceedings' (second occurring). In moving that amendment I thank the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) for revealing to me that there are many things in common between all of us. In his case it is that we both have an addiction to Le Carre's works. As I have said before, it illustrates that there are more things in common in this Parliament than is sometimes thought. Mr Barry Jones —I would like to add myself to that. Mr SPENDER —I include the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). I should also like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) for what he said in relation to the question raised by me, in particular whether or not these provisions which are presently before us, when enacted, would affect the privileges of the Victorian Parliament. I agree that it is a very difficult question. I agree with the advice which the Deputy Crown Solicitor appears to have given. Not having looked closely at it, but remarking on it as I prepared for this speech, it appeared to me that it would not affect the privileges of the Victorian Parliament because it was not expressed to do so. However, it is an exceedingly difficult constitutional question. Let us hope that it never arises. The Deputy Prime Minister rightly pointed out that it would certainly affect the media. I do not know what arrangements the Victorian Parliament has to broadcast what is said in that Parliament but I suppose that once it goes out over the air it is a little too late to prosecute anybody. Let us hope that that never arises. I said in my speech on the second reading much of what I would wish to say on the amendment which is now before the House. We are dealing with a particular instance. Other cases could arise. It seems procedurally odd and rather bizzare to introduce a piece of legislation for one instance on the assumption that that instance merits it, rather than introduce a piece of legislation which deals in principle with the question. After all, it is only if the principles which are embodied in the Judiciary Amendment Bill are thought to apply that orders can be made by a court. Equally, there may be other cases when, for precisely the same reasons-that is, reasons falling within these principles-orders should be made. To introduce a Bill simply to deal with one instance, albeit that the amendment was made at the behest apparently of the Liberal Party of Australia in Victoria, seems to us to be wrong. We therefore think that the best way of dealing with the question is the way in which I understood the Government originally intended to deal with the question, which was to apply the provisions generally. For the purposes of doing that one would simply amend the provision of the Bill which defines 'proceedings'. One would amend that by leaving out all the words after 'proceedings' where that word secondly occurs. So that the definition of 'proceedings' would simply be: ' Proceedings' means criminal proceedings. Then the Bill, when enacted, would apply to criminal proceedings whether or not they were Sheraton Hotel criminal proceedings or any other kind of proceedings. It would be up to the court to decide whether a case was made out for any form of order under the section. The very fact that an instance has occurred, which the Government rightly accepts as meriting the kind of provision before the House, gives weight to the argument that one should make provision for a general rule; that general rule to be applied by courts on the basis of the particular facts before them. I therefore ask for the amendment in my name to be adopted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.36) —The Government is unable to accept the amendment whilst appreciating the spirit in which it is moved. There might be other instances that arise. If the amendment were carried, it would enable those other instances to be encompassed within the ambit of the Judiciary Amendment Bill. The definition of 'proceedings' relates to specific proceedings in a certain place in Victoria on a certain date. Of course, the infringement, if there is any infringement, appears to be of Victorian law. Therefore, we might want to say in the general concept of debate: Why not have it for incidents that might arise in the future? If they did they would be in other States. Those States might still decide to prosecute. I do not think we could affect the situation because it would be under State law. We have had the benefit of Victorian co-operation. In other words, the law has to be upheld. But in the concept of national security and the safety of individuals there has to be a prohibition against publication. The Victorians have said that they would accept that. They have passed the appropriate piece of legislation. As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) knows, members of his own Party in the Victorian Assembly would not accept this amendment. In fact they made it very clear that, unless the definition of the word 'proceedings' was so defined and classified to relate to a specific instance, they would not approve of the Bill. I know that that creates certainly no weight in the Federal Parliament but it creates a lot of weight in terms of what sort of complementary legislation we would expect to get through Victoria. In other words, if we were to lose the Bill in this sense we would be virtually unable to say that we could adhere to the agreement that we made with the Victorian Government on this matter. Public opinion in Victoria would expect that Government to be doing something about this matter. We, in the national sphere, have the obligation of protecting people helping us in the areas of intelligence and national security. The two should not be readily entwined, but it nevertheless happened in the one case. No doubt if these people were involved in speeding offences or matters of that nature we could not in any way protect their disclosure. But when those people are in our employ we have an obligation. That is where the balance is difficult to assess. I think this Bill does it. It does it with the co-operation of the Victorian Government. It does it with the co-operation of the Victorian Parliament. It does it in the express terms in which the Victorian Parliament has indicated it would approve, and in those terms only. By added weight, for what it might be worth, I am told that the Australian Democrats in the Senate would not support the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition in this place. I think we are very mindful of the fact that, if there are other instances-we hope that there are not; we urge that there should not be-we would again be placed in a difficult position of having to try to negotiate similar legislation with the State governments. This legislation has a sunset clause in it. We think that is adequate. It is an extraordinary set of circumstances which are unique. Whilst I can appreciate the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for North Sydney in moving this amendment the Government is unable to accept it for the reasons that I have outlined. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; reported adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT LEVY BILL 1984 BASS STRAIT ADJUSTMENT LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Mr Deputy Speaker, three associated measures are to be put before the House this afternoon: the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill . I suggest it might suit the convenience of honourable members to debate these Bills cognately, while separate questions will, in the ordinary course of business, naturally have to be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these three measures? There being no objection, I shall allow that course to be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(12.43) —The purpose of this package of Bills, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill, is to provide for the imposition of an additional levy on Bass Strait crude oil and for the collection of the levy, together with the establishment of a trust fund for the purpose of making payments to the refiners of crude oil. The package of Bills is designed to compensate some of the freight costs or the northern oil refiners of crude oil from Bass Strait by re-allocating some of the freight allowance of 36c per barrel attaching to that product from the southern or Victorian refiners to the northern refiners. This is to be done by imposing a levy on Bass Strait oil equal to 20c per barrel. The revenue will be placed in a trust fund and redistributed amongst all the refiners on a basis which takes into account the cost of transporting the crude oil from Western Port to the various refineries. Under this formula the southern refiners will receive a lower amount of the freight allowance than previously while the northern refiners will receive additional assistance. There is not expected to be any change to Commonwealth revenue apart from the extra administrative costs. Whilst the members on this side of the House will not be opposing the passage of these Bills, we are concerned about a number of aspects to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. As a brief background to my comments I would explain that the nearest refinery to the Bass Strait fields, Western Port in Victoria, does not have the capacity to refine all the crude oil from those fields. The then Government in 1970- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. Debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.45) —Mr Deputy Speaker, in the grievance debate on this day I rise to grieve on behalf of Australia's unemployed. I do so as an employer of unskilled, unemployed young people. Events this week have tended to focus attention on the plight of Australia's unemployed. The action of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), whether rightly or wrongly motivated, has helped people to be more aware than ever of the unemployed in this otherwise fair city. I noted that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) in a notice of motion yesterday, drew the attention of the House to the fact that unemployment is a major issue confronting the Australian community, that, so he claimed, the Government has successfully pursued policies designed to deal with that issue and that unemployment is a major social tragedy for many Australians. Most significantly of all this week, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), said: Unemployment breaks people morally, it breaks them physically, it breaks them intellectually, it breaks up families and it brings about massive poverty. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will find in this House bipartisan agreement for the unfortunate truth that unemployment does indeed poison people, it erodes their sense of citizenship and it is a soul destroying disease. I rise because I am concerned that we have failed to date to have open debate on this issue in this House. Apart from inferences and comments made in matters of public importance by the Opposition, the matter has not been fairly aired. One could almost accuse the Government of having avoided debate on this issue if one considers that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), when last he had an opportunity to deal with youth employment in introducing the Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training scheme, did so through a 'Dear Dorothy Dix' from the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and so avoided the healthy debate that could have resulted from a ministerial statement. Further, a call from the opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations and youth employment , the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) for an inquiry into teenage employment, the relativities between youth and adult wages, and the reluctance of employers to employ young people has met as yet with no response. Mr Milton —Why did you not mount an inquiry when you were in government? Mr ANDREW —Every time we enter this House and make one or two constructive comments, we face the sort of tirade I am getting from the honourable member opposite. I have not as yet made a comment in criticism of the Government. In fact, standing here this afternoon I am not criticising the Government's short term record. I acknowledge that in the Australian Financial Review this morning, comment is made about the fact that the number of young people receiving unemployment benefit has fallen for the first time. But if we are to stand in this House and witness from this Government an exercise in self-congratulation over this dip in unemployment figures, that would be even less sensitive to the unemployed than has been the action of the honourable member for Hume. The Fraser Government could have claimed similar credit for similar dips in the period 1978 to 1981 without the benefit of drought-breaking rains, a world recovery and an inherited wage pause. I rise to make an urgent assessment of the present situation and to look, so far as I am able, with bipartisan eyes at the causes of and the solutions to Australia's blight of unemployment. I do not want to allow short term relief to camouflage my assessment of the underlying problem. Sadly, as a Parliament we have not as yet made that assessment, nor had the opportunity to do so. This Parliament introduced and has witnessed a decade of sundry and assorted unemployment schemes, whether they were the regional employment development scheme or the community employment programs, whether they were introduced by the Fraser Government under the wage pause program or introduced and funded by the $ 300 million made available by this Government under the CEP. What we cannot escape as a parliament is that none of these schemes works in reducing the number of unemployed. The facts are that all of these schemes give unemployed people some work experience but they do not provide full time jobs. Even the work experience is limited when we consider that the $300m scheme we are presently engaged in will, in fact, give work experience to something like 40, 000 people. That is fewer than one in 10 of the present unemployed. We must look elsewhere for a solution to the unemployed problem and for real lasting jobs. This is not a criticism of the Government. The present figures give some hope but nothing has been done in this House to address the root cause of the problem . No Government scheme is likely to produce productive long term jobs and solve the underlying problem of unemployment. The irony is, as every Australian knows, and certainly as every rural Australian knows, that there are jobs waiting to be done, many of them unskilled, and that nine out of 10 Australians are currently in work. The question then is: Why do employers hesitate to employ? It would be simplistic to do as people have done before and say: 'There are 600,000 small businesses in Australia and 600,000 people out of work. If every small business took on one more person there would be no more unemployment'. That is simplistic but it points to the root cause of the problem. For the truth is that employers are fearful to take on additional staff. They are fearful of those imposts that have been levied on them by State and Federal governments such as payroll taxes and workers compensation. They are fearful of those imposts that are Australian employment phenomena-long service leave and leave loadings. These on-costs may well be 50 per cent of the employer's costs. In buoyant times these demands were made and met, but a recent survey has shown that employees currently rate job security and work environment ahead of their wage levels. The responsiblity now on the Government, the responsibility even more acutely on people in work, is to look at current wage levels and at the demands they are making with current on- job costs. I would suggest that after a decade of government action it is over to the employees to decide what room they can make in their work force for the unemployed. It is the employees who dictate the unions' willingness to make room for unemployed people and it is the employees who control initial productivity. I further suggest that the solution to much of Australia's current unemployment is not through legislation but consideration. There is no escaping the unbreakable relationship that exists between real unit costs and unemployment rates. The two graphs follow each other up and they have done so under successive governments. We cannot escape that as real unit costs for employment rise so unemployment rises. The challenge the House faces, the challenge this Parliament faces, is the challenge of grasping the nettle, biting the bullet and recognising that indexation costs jobs. The wage pause introduced by the Fraser Government slowed down the rate at which people were put out of work. We are just seeing the benefit of that in this month's figures. Wage indexation will guarantee that as incomes rise so does unemployment. Uncomfortable as it is we cannot escape it. I conclude by quoting from an editorial in the Australian on 16 August last year: It is pointless to push for wage rises when an industry cannot pay them. And it is selfish to push for them when the result is a loss of jobs for workmates in the industry. The challenge that the Australian employee faces is the challenge of making room for other Australians in the work force. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.55) —Among the most difficult areas for Federal members of parliament to cover in relation to constituents' problems are those which contain some elements of government involvement but which are essentially the responsibilities of State governments. Constituents seeking the help of Federal parliamentarians become angry when their Federal members appear to them to be unwilling to pursue their cases, when in fact the parliamentarian has done all within his or her power to assist but is finally frustrated by the intransigence or inertia of State bodies. I would like to relate to the House just such a problem, as I believe that a case of injustice has occurred. My constituent's name is Maureen Rees. She is an intellectually disabled pensioner who is supported, together with a number of other intellectually disabled people, by the Ferntree Gully and District Welfare Association for the Intellectually Handicapped. For the information of honourable members I will give a broad outline of the case. In 1967 the City of Knox resolved to sell quarry land and donate the proceeds to a building fund for the intellectually handicapped of the district, to be held on trust to attract a $4 to $1 government building grant. On 6 September 1971, the land was transferred to three trustees of the Ferntree Gully and District Welfare Association for the Intellectually Handicapped, namely, Keith Robert Lithgow, Leslie Robert Kerr and Geoffrey Phillip Hayes. The trustees in turn leased the land for 99 years to Basil de Jong, Gazina de Jong and Paul Joseph Engeler, on the condition that they operate a licensed restaurant. The lease was prepared on the instructions of the Town Clerk, Neville Haynes, but there is doubt as to whether the date of the lease was 1 October 1971 or 1 October 1972. Trevor and Frank Rees, acting on behalf of their sister, Maureen, assert that evidence shows the date of the lease to be 1 August 1971. Subsequently, the trustees resigned-incidentally they resigned on 1 September 1971-and, as an aside, it is rather puzzling, to say the least, that the land was not transferred at that time to the Association which was in fact incorporated on the same day. In June 1972-the actual date is again uncertain-the three trustees and a company called PIB Investment Pty Ltd, the lessees, mortgaged the land to Alliance Acceptance Co. Ltd for $80,000, the money to be used in construction of the 'Swagman' restaurant. On 27 July 1972, the Association became the proprietors of the land by transfer from the trustees, at which time the Swagman restaurant was half completed. At this stage it is important to note that under the Hospitals and Charities Act it is necessary for a benevolent society to obtain authorisation to sell or lease land in trust. This authorisation was obtained, but again, as an aside, it should be noted that the Rees brothers claim that the date of the lease of 1 August 1972 was false and, in fact, the land was leased to the de Jongs and Engeler at a much earlier date. A replacement lease was completed on 27 September 1972, which stipulated that the Ferntree Gully and District Welfare Association become the legal owners of the restaurant, leasing both the land and premises for 99 years for a premium of $5,000, with a rent of $50 to $75 per week for the next 15 years, after which time the rent could be adjusted by mutual agreement. Subsequently, on 5 December 1977, the site and premises were sold by the Association to a company named Basilthon Nominees Pty Ltd, of which Basil de Jong and Gazina de Jong were directors, for $213,000. In February 1979, just 14 months later, Basilthon Nominees went into liquidation; the site and premises at that time having been valued at $1,750,000. It is worthy of mention here that the site was estimated to be worth about $18,000 in 1972. As mentioned previously, Frank and Trevor Rees, who are also constituents of mine, have been inquiring into the facts of the case, not only for their sister but for all mentally handicapped people in relation to their rights in respect of property held in trust on their behalf. From 1976 to date the brothers have pursued their inquiries with various State bodies and State parliamentarians but with little success. In consequence, in April 1982, they asked for my help and I accordingly made inquiries of the then Attorney-General, Treasurer and Minister for Social Security. Unfortunately, I do not have time in this debate to go over the details of the various lines of inquiry which I pursued with the various Federal Ministers. Suffice to say that it was made very clear to me that the property transactions did not fall within the responsibility of the Federal Government and inquiries should therefore be made through appropriate State Government channels. It is perhaps unfortunate that my constituents, although it is understandable after years of frustration, see the replies of the Commonwealth Ministers as unsatisfactory. I have, however, examined the respective Federal and State responsibilities very carefully and I am perfectly satisfied that the charges of fradulent dealings in relation to a property transaction involving an association registered under a State Act can fall only within the realm of State government responsibilities. Accordingly, and in conjunction with my inquiries of Commonwealth Ministers, I wrote to the State Minister of Health on 1 June 1983. Regretfully, although I have sent several reminder letters to the Minister , beyond an acknowledgment and advice that the matter has been referred to the Health Commission I have not received a reply to one of the central issues of my inquiry, which is contained in the following quote from my letter: The case involves persons dealing with the Welfare Association who had previously been convicted of stealing and fraud and doubts relating to the authenticity of: (i) dates of land transfers; (ii) authorisations of such transfers; and (iii) prices negotiated. According to a former Minister of Health, Mr W. V. Houghton, the sale of the 'Swagman' property to Basilthon Nominees Pty. Ltd. was authorised by the Health Commission in the terms of Section 68 (3) (b) of the Hospitals and Charities Act 1958, following a report by the Valuer-General that the price represented, in his opinion, a full and proper consideration as a basis for negotiations for the sale of property at the time in question-the ' property' being the land and improvements. However, the Director-General for Local Government, Mr. George Pentland, advises that no valuation in respect of the abovementioned property was made by the office of the Valuer-General. In view of that discrepancy, I write, in the interest of the Commonwealth pensioner involved, to ask for copies of the letter from the said association seeking authority to sell this trust property, pursuant to Section 68 (3) (b) of the Act, and the Health Commission's reply granting such authorisation. In the time available, I have not been able to go through the maze of channels which have been pursued by the Rees brothers in their attempts to uncover the facts behind the rather strange business dealings involving the sale of the land and premises of the Swagman restaurant. It is possible that I will be advised that the Health Commission is unable to provide the answers to the questions I have asked. Let me make it quite clear that in my opinion it will be most regrettable if I am not provided with the facts of this case. It will indicate a substantial weakening of the powers of Federal parliamentarians to act on behalf of constituents where the matter concerned falls outside the realm of Commonwealth responsibilities. Such a weakening of our representative function will also, in my view, represent a weakening of our democratic system. Let me conclude by setting out the matters of contention which I consider must be resolved before this case is settled to my satisfaction. Firstly, in view of apparent conflicting evidence in respect of the dates of the property transfer relating to the land and premises comprising the Swagman restuarant, the dates need to be ascertained and authenticated. Secondly, bearing in mind that in 1972 the undeveloped land was valued at $18,000, that in December 1977 the land and premises were sold for $213,000 and that in 1979 the land and premises were apparently valued at $1,750,000, how can this rapid escalation in values be reconciled with the actual business dealings undertaken by the various owners of the property during that period? Thirdly, in particular, what explanation is there for an 800 per cent increase in the value of the property in less than two years? Fourthly, and finally, what was the basis of the legal advice to the administrator of the Ferntree Gully and District Welfare Association for the Intellectually Handicapped, Mr Duncan Cook, that enabled him to refuse to provide either the Rees brothers or myself with a copy of the resolution of the Association authorising the sale of the property? What had the administrator got to hide? Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(1.05) —I draw the attention of the House to the Government's determination to establish a State owned overseas trading corporation regardless of widespread community opposition. The Government makes great play of its commitment to what is described as consensus. It is, however, becoming increasingly apparent that consensus is just a meaningless slogan. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the case of the Overseas Trading Corporation, which I will refer to as the OTC. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) has for the last year trumpeted his belief that Australia must have an OTC. He has done so despite implacable opposition from the business community and the opposition of the Australian exporters and manufacturers who, the Minister claims, would benefit from such a proposal. It is ironical indeed that the Minister should be promoting a proposal in the interests of business when business is totally opposed to that proposal. In recent weeks, Australia's two largest business organisations, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of Australian Industry, have made their opposition to the OTC abundantly clear. In December, the CAI conducted a survey of 41 companies engaged in manufacturing, mining, trading and the processing of primary products to establish their views on the OTC. The respondents' exports totalled around $6 billion. It was therefore a very thorough and very reliable survey. The result of the survey was that only nine of the 41 companies indicated any kind of support for an OTC and, of these, several expressed doubts about its ability to operate profitably or to represent their products adequately. CAI members argued that such a company would be superfluous. They have made a point which would be quite obvious to any government or any Minister not bent on ideological cause. Private companies would take up all the viable trading opportunities, thereby leaving the government trading company with unprofitable and commercially unviable business. The only alternative for the OTC would be to take profitable business away from the private sector. There is no doubt that that is exactly the course that the OTC would follow. These views have been strongly supported by the Australian Chamber of Commerce. The Federal Director of the Chamber, Mr Alexander Downer, wrote to the Minister for Trade on 16 December last, drawing the Minister's attention to the unanimous opposition of trading members of the Australian Chamber of Commerce to an OTC. The Chamber argued that an OTC would take business away from existing private sector exporters, thereby undermining their profitability. The Chamber further believes existing exporters are already able to facilitate small business penetration into export markets. It again believes and it has emphasised that established exporters are already able, without difficulty, to trade in the Middle East and centrally planned economies. Yet, despite this advice by the Chamber to the Minister for Trade, the Government is still pursuing a proposal. Apparently, the Government knows better then professional traders who operate daily in the market-place just what exporters need. That is just arrogant, ideological nonsense. The Government has now appointed a consultant, the Australian Bank Ltd, to look at the proposal. The bank was asked first to establish whether there was a case for an OTC and, if it felt that there was, to draw up a detailed plan of how the OTC would work. The way the terms of reference were drafted ensured that the Australian Bank would argue for an OTC. If it did not it would lose the very valuable business of drawing up the blueprint of the corporation. It has a vested interest in advising the Government that an OTC was desirable. As a compromise, the Australian Bank has proposed that 60 per cent of the OTC be owned by the private sector. I make two points about that. First, if an OTC were to be viable the private sector would be prepared to own it outright; there would be no need to commit taxpayers' funds to a commercial venture. Secondly, taxpayers' money should not be used to fund commercial activities. On the contrary, taxpayers would, I do not doubt, prefer a reduction in taxation. But, equally significant, there is no indication that business leaders support the Australian Bank's 40 : 60 proposal at all. Indeed, there are suggestions that both the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of Australian Industry will oppose the Australian Bank proposal. The Government is arguing that Australian exports have been poorly marketed and that is why its share of world trade has fallen from 1.7 per cent to 1.3 per cent over the last 12 years. It is not poor marketing which has pushed Australia out of world markets; it is simply that Australian exports are becoming increasingly uncompetitive, and that is the key to it-the competitiveness of Australia's exports. The Government's priority, therefore, should be to restore competitiveness by ensuring wage levels reflect industry's capacity to pay, by ensuring that real interest rates are brought down by responsible fiscal policies and by giving business breathing space by abandoning anti-business measures such as those outlined in the trade practices discussion paper. These are the priorities. If the Government were to translate its rhetoric on consensus into real consideration of business concerns, Australia might be able to recapture lost markets. If the Government, on an ideological crusade, proceeds with its proposals to establish an overseas trading corporation it will meet with the distrust and opposition of business and the wider community. The solution to the problem of Australia's falling export market does not lie in the establishment of nationalised industries, which no one has asked for and nobody wants. Instead, it rests with the Government in providing a sounder, more competitive economic export market. The challenge therefore is on the Government to assist in the wider economic strategy of our exporters. It does not rest in such nationalised, socialistic plans to dominate free enterprise. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(1.13) —My grievance relates to the review process available to people who have received an adverse decision by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The current review process was established by the previous Government in 1982 when the then Minister announced the formation of the Immigration Review Panel. According to the Minister's Press announcement at the time, the new arrangements constituted a major advance in the review of decisions on migration and citizenship cases. An integral part of this new approach was that applicants would be given the reasons why their applications were unsuccessful. They would also be told how to lodge an appeal and advised on how to present their cases in the most favourable way. This, I can say with surety, is not happening, and, as a result, people are being required to present their cases for appeal in ignorance of the reasons why their applications have been rejected. I have been aware of the inadequacy of the information provided by the Department for some time. However, it was brought into focus when a constituent of mine, Mr Jackson, sought my help following the rejection of his appeal. Mr Jackson had sponsored his brother-in-law, Mr Hunt, and family, who wished to migrate to Australia from England in 1982. Following a brief letter of rejection from the Australian High Commission in London in June 1983, Mr Hunt, the sponsoree, wrote to the High Commission requesting details of how many points he scored and how these points were made up. A week later Mr Hunt received the following reply from the High Commission: I appreciate your disappointment resulting from the rejection of your application. Unfortunately, unemployment is a serious problem and this has led to a reduction in the migration programme. As was explained in our letter of 1 June the decision can only be reviewed through your relative in Australia. If an appeal is lodged we will be asked to forward full details of your points assessment to Australia for consideration by the Review Panel. Mr Hunt's request for details was obviously not met by this letter from the High Commission. Mr Jackson, the Australian sponsor, in late June received a letter from the Department of Immigration which also stated that the application had been unsuccessful. Again, no reasons were given although Mr Jackson was advised that he may have a right of appeal under the review rights. Mr Jackson twice attempted by phone to obtain further details as to why the application was rejected before he lodged his appeal. He was apparently told just to fill in the form as best he could as all the details would be provided to the Review Panel directly by the Department. Not only is this advice contrary to the original intent of the Minister when providing this review right, but also it makes it impossible for the person appealing to lodge a relevant appeal. The critical section of the request for review form asks the applicant: 1. Are there any facts or circumstances about the case which are in dispute between you and the Department? 2. Are there any aspects of the case which in your opinion the Department has failed to consider or to which it has given too little consideration? A person cannot answer those questions with relevance if he has not been given details for the rejection. The Department itself recognises this as a problem in its 1983 annual report. However, it sees no immediate resolution because of the drain on resources such as staff, time and money. I contend that such a position is untenable as I believe it is a denial of the rights of the applicant. When I first saw Mr Jackson's appeal form-and that was after a decision had been made by the Minister-I criticised him for the way it had been completed. In reply to question No. 1, factors in dispute, he had detailed some of the human tragedies the sponsored couple had faced in their lives. These factors, of course, were not in dispute. In reply to question No. 2, aspects not considered by the Department, he wrote that too little consideration had been given to the fact that Mr Hunt had an offer of employment and that he had been sponsored. This was irrelevant as Mr Hunt had received the maximum points possible for the offer of employment and maximum points for being sponsored by a non-Australian citizen. But, as Mr Jackson quickly pointed out, he was not to know his answers were irrelevant because despite his requests he had been unable to obtain these details before he lodged his appeal. I myself had only known them because the Review secretariat had provided me with them at my request. As a consequence, Mr Jackson's appeal did not provide any new information which may have altered the Department's original decision. Now that he knows these details Mr Jackson believes that there are certain factors the Department has not considered and he has also obtained new material which could influence the decision. I hope that in Mr Jackson's case the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) will give him the opportunity of presenting a new appeal. However, the principal purpose of my speaking in the House today is not simply to raise facts about a particular case. Rather it is to highlight the principle involved: That is, that the Department of Immigration is not providing people with enough information to decide whether they have grounds for appeal in the first place and certainly not enough detail to lodge a relevant appeal in the second. I also believe that whilst the Department does not provide such information the Review Panel is in many cases wasting its time reviewing decisions. I am suggesting that a reallocation of the Department's resources may in fact reduce the work load. Under the current arrangements, when an appeal is lodged it goes straight to a section of the Department to provide a statement of applicable policy and standards and to ascertain the Department's reasons for the rejection of the specific application. This requires the Department to gather together information, possibly from the overseas post and various sections of the Department within Australia, on which to write a report. This process is taking so long, according to a member of the Review Panel, that the Panel has on some occasions had no cases before it because they were all awaiting departmental report. If the Department's staff, time and money were spent in the first instance on providing individuals with details on policy and the reasons why the Department rejects applications it would, firstly, obviate the need to have a special section of the Department set up to acquire the same details long after the decision is made; secondly, it would allow applicants to determine whether they have any ground for an appeal; and, thirdly, it would provide those seeking an appeal information to enable them to lodge a relevant appeal. This in turn would make the Review Panel's role far more effective. I therefore call on the Minister for Immigration to consider the matters I have raised in this House today and to take measures which will overcome what I perceive to be inadequacies in the current review system. In the few minutes I have remaining I also express my concerns over the rights given under the current review system to people who have come to Australia on visitor's visas to stay here permanently. Such people sign an agreement when entering the country as visitors undertaking to abide by the conditions of their visas, that is, that they are in Australia purely for holiday purposes and they will return home prior to the expiration of their visas. Yet under review rights three and four if such people apply for a change of status after their arrival and are rejected they are entitled to appeal against the Department's ruling free of charge. This right is being abused. It is well known that if people want to extend their holiday visas for a further six to 12 months the most effective way is to wait until their visas have almost expired and then apply to the Department for a change of status and, if rejected, appeal. This whole process, due to delays in the system, can take up to 12 months. Not only does this process clog up the Department with even more files but it costs the taxpayers a huge amount of money in that they are financing the costs of the Review Panel in examining such cases. Also, such people, after six months in Australia, get the benefit of medicare coverage. Why we as Australians subject ourselves to the costs and time involved in appeals by people who have reneged on declarations they have signed when entering the country as visitors is beyond me. A minimum change in my opinion would be that such people should at least pay for the costs of any appeal. In fact, I question their right of appeal in the first place. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(1.23) —I compliment the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) for some of the sentiments that he expressed in his speech. On 5 March 1983, 23 Liberal and National Party members lost their seats from this House in the Parliament. The Australian Labor Party swept to power with a majority of 25 members and on a two-party preferred vote a 3.6 per cent swing. A swing of 3.3 per cent on a two-party preferred vote is all that is necessary to unseat the present Government. In a nutshell, at that time the population judged that the Fraser Government had not come across with the goods. Whether Liberal and National Party supporters agree or disagree with the collective judgment of the people is now immaterial. Our democratic system produced an ALP Federal Government. To me, that we have a democracy rates as equal in importance to my Party being in power. I am the only person now in this Parliament who actually lost a seat in 1983 and who can now stand in this place and speak of that loss. Dismissing at this time a couple of disappointing aspects of the ALP campaign in my then seat of Fadden, I have no difficulty in understanding why a national swing of 3.6 per cent took place and why we lost 23 seats. I harbour no resentment about the people's decision. However, despite the present high personal standing of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I voice a firmly held view that we are now witnessing in Australia the greatest con act by any government and any Prime Minister in this nation's history. I do not state this as one who is politically peeved but if people will only look beyond the veneer of utter falsity of the Government and the Prime Minister it is easy to see. The Prime Minister has projected an image of being 'Honest Bob', who would rather be dead than be found out being dishonest. There is now sufficient evidence to prove that Robert James Lee Hawke is not the angel he would have people believe. His first untruth as leader of the ALP was on the very day he became leader of that party, 3 February 1983. Let us remember how on that night on 3 February, during an interview with Richard Carleton on Nationwide he did his cool-to describe it mildly-when Carleton had the temerity to ask him, in relation to the overthrow of my fellow Queenslander, Bill Hayden: 'Are you at all embarrassed by the blood on your hands tonight?' Honest Bob exploded. He accused Carleton of being quite 'perverted' and of 'impertinence'. Honest Bob vehemently denied during the 1983 election campaign that he was in any way implicated and his righteousness, what is more, was convincing to the electorate at large. The Paul Kelly book, The Hawke Ascendancy, has revealed how deeply involved the now Prime Minister was in Bill Hayden's overthrow. Only one month ago the Prime Minister actually complimented Kelly at the launching of the book on the accuracy of the contents of the book. He even alluded to some passages being a little bit embarrassing to him and to Bill Hayden. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order. The honourable member will refer to the office of the member. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker; I mean to the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). So much for honesty on that occasion. How any man could look into that box and demonstrate against Richard Carleton, who obviously had put his finger on a very tender spot, is beyond me. How any man could have pretended for the rest of that interview that it was all lies when it was the truth is also beyond me. The electorate should not need reminding of how the Federal Government has walked away from so many of those promises made during the February 1983 election campaign: There will be tax cuts; no pensioners shall be hurt; petrol prices will come down by 3c a litre; there will be no additional tax on superannuation payments and no capital gains tax; we will leave the health levy in place until 1 February 1984-I notice the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) sitting at the table nodding his head; he remembers it too-we will leave in place the interest rebate for those paying off their homes; and so on and so on and so on. Honourable members will remember the words of the Prime Minister on 11 February 1983: 'Now, one thing you will find throughout this campaign is that I am not going to make promises that I cannot keep'. Following his election those promises and so many others that I have alluded to were all swept aside with the excuse that John Howard and Malcolm Fraser had deceived Australia and that there was a deficit or an overspending to the tune of $9.6 billion. That was their excuse. In this place we hear that repeated and repeated, time after time. Whenever the Labor Government is in trouble it refers to that deficit. The untruth of that figure of $9.6 billion and in its continued use was highlighted last August when the Government Budget came down showing a deficit of only $5.9 billion. The Government then added another $2.5 billion to finance its own programs. So within five months that $9.6 billion had become only $5.9 billion. The people of Australia have been conned on the walking away from all those promises. The Canberra Times of 7 March, in its editorial titled 'P.M.'s Image Damaged', stated: The point is worth repeating: Mr Hawke and Mr Keating have now conceded that the figures they used to justify abandonment of the ALP's election program were spurious. The import of that admission has yet to sink into the electorate, the ALP branches, and the industrial wing of the Labor movement. I notice the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) leaving the chamber. Many people in the Labor Party share many of his views. How disappointed they have been with the Prime Minister for the way in which he has walked away from so many of the commitments which motivated left wing people in this country to work their hearts out to get a Labor government. That is not my problem; that is their problem. In conclusion, I repeat what I said earlier. We are witnessing in this country an effective campaign by one of the greatest con merchants this nation has seen. I wish him well in his appearances at sporting events. I wish him well on his happy-go-lucky attitude to the job. But when it comes to deceiving the people of this nation and combining that deceit with an appearance that butter would not melt in his mouth, that it is honest Bob, I take exception. If he wants to be a Prime Minister who says to the people, 'Well, I indulge in trickery; judge me for what I am', that is honest; but his parade in this place day after day pretending that he is something that he is not needs to be exposed. I just hope that Liberal and National Party people start playing an active part in talking to fellow Australians about this because the facts are there to bolster the argument and to support the argument and to rip away this sickening veneer which currently exists. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(1.33) —I join today's debate to grieve for the young people of Australia-those people neglected during the seven years of Liberal rule-and to applaud the new Government's actions in the area of youth policy, to commend those steps which have been taken and those which are still in the planning stages, which have for the first time in many years provided proof that here at last we have a government which is genuinely concerned with the problems of young people in contemporary society. Coming to office at the time that it did the Government was faced with the twin problems of record youth unemployment and low retention and participation rates in our schools and tertiary institutions. These two problems are, of course, at least in part, related. Low participation rates after the end of compulsory schooling must contribute towards high youth unemployment. It is true that low retention rates in Australian secondary schools and low participation rates in post-secondary education are features of the Australian system of which none of us, particularly the former Government, can be proud. Any comparision with countries such as Japan, the United States of America or Canada reveals that we perform very poorly and that, while on average their young people are pursuing further education after the compulsory age of leaving, far too many of our young people have their talents wasted and have joined the ranks of the unemployed. The Government is, of course, taking steps to remedy this appalling situation- not, as some mean-minded critics would suggest, with the objective of hiding youth unemployment in the schools and post-secondary institutions but because our performance is so bad when compared with the overseas experience, because the present statistics reveal an appalling waste of human talent which, if developed, would enrich the lives of individuals and contribute so much to the wealth of the nation. I was therefore very pleased to see the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), very early in their terms, expressing an interest and a determination to act in this area. Last November a team from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development spent some time in Australia reviewing youth policy, taking a fresh look at existing programs and their deficiencies, looking at young people's problems and offering overseas experience of similar problems and possible approaches to solutions. As the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs said at that time: The Government sees a need to take stock of existing programs and of their relevance to the problems of young people to improve co-ordination, remove inconsistencies and develop a more coherent set of policies and programs. This review was a very important initiative of the new Government and I, with other members I am sure, await its final report with a great deal of interest. The Government's participation and equity program which was announced in the education guidelines of 1983 was welcomed by all of those people with a genuine interest in improving educational opportunity in this country. This program is a most important expression of the needs policy and it is aimed at encouraging greater participation among disadvantaged groups and in disadvantaged areas. It will target resources, particularly human resources, on those areas which have historically been disadvantaged, particularly through the long periods of Liberal Federal government. It will come as no surprise to honourable members to learn that the area of western Sydney, part of which I represent, will require special assistance under the participation and equity program. Honourable members might be interested to learn, however, of the extent of the problem and therefore the extent of the need. Nationally, around 35 per cent of students enjoy a full secondary education. The figure for Government schools is around 28 per cent. There are 44 Government secondary schools in western Sydney. Thirty-seven of them retain less than the national average and 33 less than the Government school average. More than half of those schools retain fewer than one in five of their Year 7 entrants to the end of Year 12. Three of them retain fewer than one in 10. Clearly, the western Sydney region is an area requiring additional resources to meet special problems. The assistance must be substantial. It must be targeted quite specifically on those areas of special need and it must apply over a long period. Otherwise no substantial results will occur. The responses to the problems need to be many, varied and innovative. They may involve alternative courses; they may involve new curricula; they may require, indeed, new ways of organising schools. I was delighted last year when the then Minister for Education in New South Wales, now the Deputy Premier, the Hon. Ron Mulock, announced that a pilot senior high school would operate in western Sydney from the beginning of 1985-a school modelled on the Canberra pattern, a separate institution for students pursuing the last two years of secondary education. They certainly have been a great success in Canberra. I must confess that I was, however, rather less than delighted to learn recently that the introduction of the western Sydney senior high school had been postponed, postponed largely because of opposition from the New South Wales Teachers' Federation. I must say that I find the Federation's objections to this innovation a little difficult to understand. I do that from the position of a person who has been a fully paid up and frequently very active member of that organisation for more than 20 years. At this stage I can only express the hope that further and meaningful and genuine discussions between all of those people interested in providing workable solutions to the many and varied problems of the young people in western Sydney will continue so that this project can be launched with goodwill, co-operation and understanding on all sides and, above all, with a genuine determination to make it succeed, to make it work in the interests of the young people in that area and to lift retention rates in western Sydney from their present very, very low level. I remain convinced, however, that the real key to improving participation rates in Australian education-apart from innovative organisation, new courses and more determination at that level-rests with the provision of improved income support for those who choose to continue their studies. While it is true that some young people-indeed many-discontinue their education at age 15 because perhaps there is little in schools to attract them to stay on and they see no reason to extend their sentences for a further two years, I believe that there are many who would otherwise stay on and who fail to do so for purely economic reasons. In other words, they see little sense in staying on at school when they can leave, attempt to get a job or look at the option of the unemployment benefit if they fail to obtain employment. I was therefore pleased to receive recently, with other honourable members, a copy of the discussion paper entitled 'Income Support for Young People'. This paper was prepared following the inaugural meeting of the Youth Ministers in November last year and I understand that the working party reported to a further meeting of those Ministers recently. This paper identifies very well a number of very important issues in this area, including the complexity of the current system, which involves at least 37 different possible methods of payment to young people. It addresses the inadequacy of levels of allowances, particularly for those young people living away from home or those who have no parental support. It identifies inequities created by income tests, disincentives operating in the system and the question of dependency. It looks at overall constraints on possible reforms to the system, particularly those constraints arising from severe budgetary pressures placed on the present Government and, of course, inherited from the previous Government. The paper explores many of the problems and exposes many of the anomalies in the system, which has been allowed to grow like Topsy and which has been characterised by the ad hockery of successive Liberal administrations. The task of rationalisation, restoring equity and providing incentives where they are most needed will not be an easy one. This discussion paper is an important first step and I look forward very much to the Government's response to it. I draw particular attention to the plight of those mature age students who are seeking to obtain a school certificate or Year 10 certification. At present these students qualify for no form of educational assistance, yet without the school certificate they are unable to proceed to full secondary education. I trust that their claims will be addressed in any review of the arrangements for student assistance. I close by commending the initiative of the Youth Ministers in having this discussion paper prepared. I express confidence that it will produce real and lasting benefits for the many young people in this country who deserve a better deal and who have for far too long been denied it. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.43) —I rise to speak on the subject of Sydney Airport and the hundreds and thousands of people who are being affected by the refusal of this Government to make a decision about that airport and about the site of the second airport. It was the policy of the Australian Labor Party in opposition not to proceed with the third runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Surprisingly one might think, given its record for keeping promises, this promise was kept-or perhaps not so surprisingly when one looks at the electorates which it thought might be adversely affected in electoral terms by a decision to go ahead with the third runway. What has it done? It has left us without any proposal for a third runway because that has been stopped and it has left us in search of a site for a second airport. It is that aspect that I wish to look at and ask three question: Firstly, when are we going to have a decision; secondly, where is the new site going to be; and, thirdly, what of Sydney Airport? Nobody could deny that this is an urgent question, least of all the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), who has been at pains to express his concern about the need for a speedy resolution of the question of the site of Sydney's second airport. Piecing together the Government's policy in this area is rather like being blindfolded and trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle of which some of the pieces are missing, but I will seek to piece it together as best I can from published statements and reports of what the Minister has said. In the Canberra Times of 30 March 1983 this is what he is reported to have said, and he has never denied it, concerning the relocation, the new site: The project has top priority and I hope to reach a final decision sooner rather than later . . . certainly within the life of the current Parliament. On the same day, 30 March, he was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying this: Sydney will not get a second airport on this side of the Blue Mountains unless a site is chosen quickly. One can only say he is absolutely right there. He is also reported as saying this: I will not be the Minister for Aviation when the second airport is completed, but I will be the minister when its location is decided. Will he? Is that his intention? Is that the Government's intention? Going forward through some of the statements which are reported of him in the newspapers, on 5 May 1983 he is reported to have said that he hoped to bring the matter to a fairly rapid conclusion. He was reported to have said further that a deal of work had been done by the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Study. Certainly there had been a deal of work done on the whole question of the major airport needs of Sydney. Moving forward and trying to piece together the jigsaw puzzle, on 13 May a statement of a meeting between the Minister and local government representatives stated: Mr Beazley told the councillors that he had no preconceived ideas about the eventual site but that he was determined to make a final decision as soon as possible. What does that tell us of Mr Beazley? It tells us, one would think, that he is a man-a Minister-on top of his portfolio, vigorous, keen to see decisions made and determined to see that decisions will be made. This is not a man, one might think, who will be stopped, who will be held back by bureaucratic inertia or the politics of Tammany Hall. Or is that not so? Is in fact the Government playing the politics of Tammany Hall and is the Minister a party to those political games? What do we see as we go through the Press cuttings? On 27 July 1983 he is reported to have said of Kingsford-Smith Airport: It is not our intention to abandon this site . . . He is also reported as pointing this out, which is undeniably the fact: The annual wages bill for employees on the airport alone is around $300 million and it employs close to 14,000 people . . . That is so. Of course the loss of that airport would be an economic catastrophe for people living around that area. But let us move forward again through the Press cuttings, through the statements made by the Minister. On 25 August, in a news release, he said: I am very concerned about the worry and uncertainty which many people are experiencing as a result of proposals regarding the development or airport facilities in the Sydney area and the Government will be moving to take this decision as quickly as possible. I emphasise the words 'as quickly as possible' because how else could the Government approach this decision other than as a decision which needed to be urgently made? But is it being urgently made? We come next to a joint statement made by Mr Beazley-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) -Order! Mr SPENDER —By the Minister for Aviation and the Minister for Environment and Planning of the New South Wales Government, Mr Bedford. That statement was made on 27 September 1983 and in it we see this: Mr Beazley said Sydney Airport was the hub of the Australian airline network and the resolution of Sydney's future airport needs in an environmentally acceptable manner was one of our primary objectives. It certainly is the hub of Australia's international network and of Australia's domestic network, taking as it does more than eight and a half million passengers through it each year and suffering as it does, of course, great problems of congestion. What did Mr Bedford say in this same statement of 27 September 1983? Mr Bedford said: . . . the time was rapidly approaching when the opportunity to preserve a second airport site would be lost. That is undeniably the truth, and time is passing. In this joint statement it was also said of the MANS Study-the sixth study made on Sydney airport needs- which finished in 1979 and which is a voluminous examination of those needs: . . . the MANS Study is still relevant and therefore will only require updating . One would think, therefore, that it would be a fairly quick thing to make a decision upon this matter, important as it is and pressingly urgent as it is. But what do we see? The clincher in this statement of 27 September 1983, for reasons which are indicated, limping as they are: . . . it will not be possible to announce the actual site until about mid 1985. Let us move forward to 27 March 1984, exactly six months after the joint statement by the Federal Minister and the New South Wales Minister. The Minister for Aviation is reported in the Canberra Times as saying to the National Aviation Press Club: He did not believe that the present Kingsford-Smith Airport would disappear totally. What does that mean? It means that it is largely to disappear. Let me now come back to the questions that I posed at the outset. The first was: When is the decision going to be made? The decision is going to be made after the next election and the Government does not give a damn about the consequences in terms of inconvenience, in terms of money lost, in terms of whether or not it will even be possible after the next election to find an airport. It is going to defer the decision for purely political reasons: The politics of Tammany Hall and the principles of Tammany Hall. The second question is: Where is the site going to be? We do not know. But the Government must know, the Department of Aviation must know. It is perfectly impossible that after all this time they would not know where the site is going to be, if they really wanted to tell us. Thirdly, what of Sydney Airport? We now know that Sydney Airport is to be run down. To what extent one does not know, but if it is not going to disappear, totally, to quote what Mr Beazley has said-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I would ask the honourable member-- Mr SPENDER —What the Minister said means that there is going to be very little of it left. That means a great loss of jobs, a huge diversion of resources, and for what purpose? Apparently the purpose can only be to meet the commitments of the Government to its political views, and its political views about getting back into power regardless of the consequences to the people who live around Sydney Airport and in the sites which are affected by the proposals for the new airport. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Burke, I must ask honourable members to abide by the Standing Orders and to refer to honourable members either by their electorates or by their portfolios. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(1.53) —I would like to make a few remarks about the restructuring of Australian industry-a topic which I think is of enormous importance to this country-and on the Government's attitude towards this important medium to long term objective. Let me say firstly that I consider it a disgrace that the Federal Opposition has hardly ever mentioned industry policy or the restructuring of industry. Yesterday we had the spectacle of the first question on industry policy from the Opposition being asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). That was the Opposition's first reference to the matter and it was not in fact a substantive question on restructuring. This reflects the fact that the Opposition has nothing to say on industry policy. During its period in government its whole approach to industry matters was total chaos. In the final year of the Fraser Government 100,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing industry-a wholesale and massive destruction of our manufacturing industry unprecedented in Australian history. The Labor Government , in its first year, has been trying to cope with the crisis situation which it inherited from the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. But this is not sufficient in itself. What is necessary and what we are developing is a policy for the restructuring of industry, a positive policy which we hope will result in the development and strengthening of Australian manufacturing industry to make it competitive and efficient, and at the same time able to provide a lasting industrial base for this country. The term 'restructuring' may be open to different interpretations. However, let me emphasise this point: No member of this Government would consider ' restructuring' to mean sudden, massive and isolated reductions in protection to large sections of our manufacturing industry. That has never been the intention of this Government because, without doubt, such a course of action would lead to significantly reduced employment in manufacturing and, at least in the medium term, would result in greater total unemployment. Swift and uncomplemented reductions in trade barriers represent a politically naive and economically callous approach to industry policy. The term 'restructuring' does not refer to the vertual destruction of our manufacturing base; rather, it is an important long term, positive goal to achieve viable, efficient and productive industries. Unlike many on the other side, including the former Treasurer, and certain Federal Government bureaucracies with their heads in the clouds of conservative economic theory-such as the Industries Assistance Commission-the Government realises that immediate and significant reductions in protection will, in isolation, be counter-productive to its objective of eventual full employment. Central to this is the recognition that manufacturing industry is a relatively labour intensive sector and that a redistribution of income away from manufacturing industry which would improve with isolated reductions in trade barriers will destroy more jobs than it creates, even in the long term. The redirected investment away from manufacturing would, in the present economic climate, flow mainly to financial speculation and possibly to the mining sector, thus creating fewer jobs and a more concentrated level of wealth. For this reason the Labor Government is committed to the promotion of strong manufacturing and service industries. Long term restructuring must be designed to achieve this and therefore must involve much more than changes in protection levels. Protection is but one aspect of the concept of restructuring. The fact that lowering trade barriers in isolation can be a negative and destructive policy, however, should not lead us to think that in the longer term such a course of action, when complemented with appropriate backup policies, cannot be positive and constructive. I believe the time has come to stop looking at protection in the narrow, philosophically biased way the Opposition has done in the past. We must start to look at the issue of protection policy in terms of how best it can be conducted for the purposes of the Government's restructuring goal. The first step towards this is to consider protection policy as only one aspect of the Government's overall long term industry policy. It is only then that reducing protection can be constructive and positive. Clearly, the short-sighted protection policies of the previous Government have shown that to consider protection as an independent , self-fulfilling aspect of economic policy will completely negate its effectiveness. Firms have rarely been willing to expand investment and employment in return for assistance,be it by way of protection or direct financial assistance. The end result of the previous Government's attitude towards protection has not been more efficient and responsive industries but higher unemployment and underutilised capacity. A long term policy of restructuring based on two-way agreement between employers and the Government is the only guarantee we have that reducing protection will not just destroy jobs. The basis of such agreements and undertakings must be a comprehensive and systematic plan. There is no other way we can be assured that new industries will be in place to employ workers if and when they become redundant. The prime task of government forward planning must be to ensure that potential growth areas are identified and swiftly acted upon. The necessary government bodies, such as the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Australian Manufacturing Industry Council and other industry councils, are already in place to implement and where necessary enforce a broad planning strategy. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SINCLAIR —I refer the Minister for Defence to his answer on the Invincible fiasco last year and to the various conflicting comments he made. Does the Minister still maintain, as he did in this House on 1 March 1984, that there was no policy in place to cover dry docking of vessels such as the Invincible, as distinct from the long-standing practice on visits of nuclear armed or nuclear powered ships? Mr SCHOLES —The statement which I released on this matter and which was agreed to by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America constitutes the agreed statement which has been made on this matter by the three governments in respect of dry docking of ships which are nuclear powered or which may have been carrying nuclear weapons. The statement is an agreed statement, and it stands as set out. Mr CHYNOWETH —Can the Foreign Minister say what period has elapsed since he first stated that the Government would establish a peace research institute? How can he justify this delay? Will he give an undertaking that there will now be prompt action in carrying out the firm commitment given by the Government to establish such an institute? Mr HAYDEN —It is a matter of great good fortune that I do, by coincidence, happen to have some figures here which will be helpful in response to this question. I acknowledge that several months have elapsed since I originally announced that a peace research institute would be established and that the Australian Government would be funding its foundation and operation. It was to be established at the Australian National University under arrangements which were then mutually agreed upon. Unfortunately the arrangements went foul of some institutional and structural problems. As a consequence the arrangements had to be re-negotiated. They have been. The centre is to go ahead and will be established at the Australian National University. I will convey the latest details and confirmation that the project is to go ahead to the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Karmel, in the course of today or tomorrow. For the record I add that I am extremely pleased at the generous response of the Minister for Finance in agreeing that the new arrangements would be funded. He enjoys a very high respect in the Government as being an attentive protector of the public purse against all assaults. Indeed he has an enviable and unrivalled record in our hearts and minds. That is somewhat different from winning them, I suppose. The figures which he has agreed to are $50,000 for 1983-84; $217,000 for 1984- 85; $263,000 for 1985-86; $269,000 for 1986-87; and $350,000 for the remainder of the seven-year guarantee period which the Australian National University sought. I repeat that I am indeed grateful to the Minister for Finance for the help in this matter. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a follow-up question of the Minister for Defence. In the light of his previous answer is he aware that there was an exchange of notes between Australia and the United States of America regarding the furnishing of supplies and services to naval vessels which did not distinguish between services to be provided to nuclear and non-nuclear vessels? The notes were tabled, slightly amended, in this House in 1957 and were again drawn to the notice of honourable members in 1963. Is he aware that article 3 of this agreement requires each government to supply services such as overhauling, repairs, alterations, installation of equipment, together with incidental supplies, to visiting naval vessels of the other government? Would the Minister agree that the provisions of this agreement constitute the basis of a policy under which the Royal Navy's request would be made for the dry docking of Invincible to be performed in Australia? Why does the Minister deny that any policy was in force? Will the Minister confirm to this House that there will be no repetition henceforth of the Invincible fiasco? Mr SCHOLES —Firstly, the answer to the right honourable gentleman's specific question is no. Secondly, I have set out the agreed position of the three governments concerned and that stands. Mr GRIFFITHS —I address a question to the Treasurer. In view of the pessimistic statements made yesterday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the state of the Australian economy would the Treasurer be in a position-by dint, I suppose, of the same good fortune to which the Foreign Affairs Minister referred -- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should proceed with his question. Mr GRIFFITHS —Would the Treasurer be in a position to advise the House of any additional information which further confirms the success of the Government's economic policies? Mr KEATING —It just so happens that figures for the December quarter national accounts were released this morning. I assure the House, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and particularly my colleagues the members of the Government, that these figures are cause for much pleasure on the part of the Government in particular and, I should hope, the Parliament in general. Mr Speaker, you may recall that when the September national accounts came out the growth in gross domestic product in that quarter was 4.4 per cent, the highest rate recorded since the quarterly figures had been published. I am now in a position to advise the House that that figure has been revised upwards to 5 per cent. The accounts show that growth for the first six months of this year was running at 6.9 per cent; that was 5 per cent for September and 1.9 per cent for December . If we were to repeat, as I think is possible, the 1.9 per cent in the two ensuing quarters in March and June we would easily exceed the 10 per cent rate of growth through the year that I forecast a week ago. Indeed the prospect is that that figure will be exceeded. Of course, one of the claims that have been made against the Government in respect of the pick-up in activity this year is that all the growth was coming off the farm and government sectors and that really everything was just going to fall in a heap when the growth in the farm sector and what have you finished. In the December quarter national accounts the contribution from government expenditure was in fact negative for the quarter, as was the contribution from the farm sector. Yet growth in the non-farm sector was 2.2 per cent. I am not in the business of annualising figures but lest any colleague in the Parliament confuse the 2.2 per cent with a low figure I state that based on that one quarter, if we were to do the old Phil Lynch trick, it would annualise at somewhere between 8 per cent and 9 per cent. In fact growth of 2.2 per cent in non-farm gross domestic product in one quarter is very strong indeed. In the national accounts we have seen the first positive contribution from private capital expenditure for the first time in six quarters. With consumption revealed as running very strongly in the accounts we now have a significant contribution coming from the private sector. Therefore, the claim that this is all because of the farms and all that stimulus coming off the Commonwealth and State Budgets is simply untrue. There is now a strong and significant contribution coming through from the private sector. As well today retail sales figures have been published which show an increase. Motor vehicle sales are up. While I am on this subject let me say in respect of the national accounts that inflation for the calendar year 1983, and I think the Parliament should listen to this, as measured by the broad implicit price deflator-that is not just the consumer price index, as my colleague the honourable member for Bennelong is always pointing out-was 6.1 per cent. There were no Medicare fiddles. The broadest deflator was 6.1 per cent. That is a lot different from the 11.5 per cent legacy of the former Government. It is a lot different from the 11.5 per cent increase in the consumer price index and the 12 per cent to 13 per cent on the implicit price deflator of a year ago. Mr Hawke —We have halved it. Mr KEATING —It has been halved. The inflation rate, on the broadest of deflators , has been cut by half to 6.1 per cent. Let me also indicate to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that company profits for the last 12 months have rebounded very sharply, rising by 39 per cent over the year-the highest since 1973-with the profit share to gross domestic product being higher than in any year under the Fraser Government. So much for the continuing business support for the-- Mr SPEAKER —I hope the Treasurer is rounding off his answer. Mr KEATING —I am right on the answer, Mr Speaker. What the national accounts make clear-and it now becomes a matter of history rather than a matter of speculation or forecasting-is that Australia has a very strong pick-up in demand . We have a strong profit performance. We have consumer spending and confidence up. We have a strong contribution from the private sector. With those conditions in place, as both the Prime Minister and I have said in the last few weeks, that lays the preconditions for a continuing pick-up in private investment in the economy. It is a stunning turnaround in the economy and it more than lays the foundation for continued economic growth in Australia, for a true non- inflationary recovery. At this point in time let me say, without gilding the lily in the slightest, that the Government can be very proud of this result. Mr MACPHEE —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the call in October last year by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for a halt in the escalation of labour on-costs. I ask: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a recent study by the Business Council of Australia which shows that the hourly on-costs of employing labour increased by 14.4 per cent over the calendar year 1983 and that these on-costs now add 53 per cent to the direct costs of employing people? Does the Minister accept the logic of avoiding increases in real direct costs under current economic circumstances and that that logic extends also to indirect costs? In recognising that job security and retirement incomes now rate ahead of wages as employee priorities, what does the Government intend to do to ensure that the claim for improved superannuation is not granted in addition to wage increases? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of the survey which was published by the Business Council of Australia and which showed some rather startling figures in respect of labour on-costs which, of course, are not all paid as a result of payments to employees but are paid because of things such as payroll tax which are not attributable to either the unions or the workers on the job but to government decisions. However , I say to the honourable member that he should be cautious in utilising this kind of survey because we do not have any official figures on on-costs. Various surveys have been conducted over the past few years by various employer organisations, all of which have come up with quite different figures. The Business Council of Australia survey, which was published recently, was the same survey, covering the same companies and using the same questionnaire as the Australian Industries Development Association survey the previous year. Yet the December 1982 survey-the same survey conducted a year later but for the same period-showed an increae of 8.6 per cent as at December 1982, which does not make any sense. Over the course of the year December 1982 to December 1983 the Business Council's survey showed that there had been a 3.3 per cent increase in wage costs and a 14.4 per cent increase in labour on-costs. I found this very difficult to understand. On looking more closely at the survey I found that there were some quite inexplicable elements in it. For instance we are told that public holiday costs went up 25 per cent. Since there were no more public holidays in 1983 than there were in 1982 I find that difficult to understand. We are told that leave loading costs went up 16.7 per cent and that leave costs went up 23 per cent. That I understand may have something to do with the fact that more employees in some industries were asked to take more leave in 1983, for instance, to use up their long service leave because of the dire state of the economy. They were using up an entitlement which was not accruing any faster in 1983 than in previous years. In regard to the other elements of the survey such as employee amenities and safety provisions, the survey shows an increase of over 20 per cent. On further investigation it turns out that this was because depreciation costs on employee amenities were allocated over fewer workers as there were fewer employees in those companies which were surveyed. Therefore, the cost per employee was higher . I think we need to fully understand exactly what is being put to us when we are told that labour on-costs increased in this way. Clearly some parts of the survey are not at all explicable. Other parts are clearly to do with the fact that the recession has created greater costs per employee. If the honourable member compares labour on-costs in Australia with those overseas as published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1979, he will see that our figures, even accepting the Business Council's figures, are not higher than those generally applying in other countries. Nevertheless having said all that, can I say to the honourable member that the Government would, of course, be concerned if there were a surge of labour on-costs and if this were found to be a way of getting around the wage indexation guidelines in some concerted way. Therefore we are concerned about that. We are aware that there is a move for increased superannuation entitlements or for superannuation entitlements to be extended. At the present time that is occurring particularly in the building industry. That, of course, is not unique. It has developed under various wage systems in the past, including the previous wage indexation system when superannuation schemes were negotiated continuously throughout that period. We are concerned that those superannuation schemes which are developed are genuine superannuation schemes. We have been concerned to do that in the building industry. We have also asked the Australian Council of Trade Unions to give us an assurance that there will not be some rash of claims for superannuation schemes to take the place of wage claims which might otherwise have existed but for the wage indexation guildelines. The ACTU has given us an assurance that there will not be a rash of superannuation claims. Of course there may be other superannuation claims. However, there will not be a widespread rash of such claims but an orderly process at much the same pace that has been going on for over a decade. Mr CROSS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House of the progress made by the Government in implementing its community employment program? Mr WILLIS —I am very pleased to inform the honourable member that the community employment program, which is the largest labour market program ever put into place in this country, is being successfully implemented and will, in the course of this year, assist 40,000 people to obtain employment. As at 9 March, honourable members may be interested to know, 4,419 projects had been approved, involving 29,328 jobs. A further 966 projects have been recommended and are waiting approval. Involved in them are another 4,333 jobs. So altogether, approved or awaiting approval, are 33,661 jobs. In terms of the number of jobs actually on the ground, some 1,350 projects have been commenced, with approximately 10,000 people working at the present time. That number will increase very rapidly as the projects which have been approved are put into place. As I have said, we will have approximately 40,000 people at work by the end of this financial year. I am pleased to say that the targets of the program are being very substantially achieved. Some 94 per cent of the jobs are going to those who have been unemployed continuously for more than three months. About 35 per cent of the jobs approved are expected to be filled by women, which does fall short of the 50 per cent target which the Government set itself. However, if one excludes the jobs on local roads component, which has been excluded from that target, it comes up to 40 per cent. We expect that percentage to increase further. Opposition members interjecting- Mr WILLIS —I know that members of the Opposition are not at all interested in the unemployed. I can understand their not being interested in this answer and being more interested in the shenanigans of the honourable member for Hume. As I was saying in regard to the target for women, approximately 40 per cent of the jobs outside the jobs on local roads component are being taken up by women. We expect that percentage to increase as more community group projects are approved in the course of this year. The House may also be interested to know that 7.4 per cent of the total jobs approved have been taken up by Aborigines; 3.5 per cent by disabled persons; and 2.7 per cent by migrants with language difficulties. In summary, I think the program is being successfully implemented. It is an enormous source of satisfaction to me and to the Government that this program will this year provide about 40,000 jobs for people who, in the main, because of their disadvantaged position in the labour market would have had little chance of getting a job, even in the context of the very strongly growing economy which the Treasurer has outlined to us today. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Further to the Minister's reply to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I ask him whether he will discuss his response with the Minister for Resources and Energy, who said in the Senate on 9 November last year: . . . there is a significant difference between the prices at which at least Australian uranium has actually been sold over the last couple of years and the spot price. Will he further refresh his memory of a table submitted to a Senate Estimates committee last year by his own Department which showed that spot prices for uranium last year were only two-thirds of the weighted average shipment price of Australian uranium sales? Will he now drop the pretence of talking about spot prices and explain precisely why his Government, which has clearly dumped its old, irrational uranium policy, will not now allow existing and prospective miners to commence negotiations for new contracts? Mr BARRY JONES —I think that the appropriate course is either to take the question on notice or, alternatively, to try to get a response for the honourable member from my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy in the course of the day and it can be interpolated in the program later on. But it would not be appropriate for me to try to second guess what the Minister for Resources and Energy was saying as I was not involved in the discussion. Mr FRY —I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs whether he can comment on reports that Chinese officials will soon approach the Australian Government with a proposal to allow 10,000 Chinese guest workers-- Mr MacKellar —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member has asked the Minister for a comment. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to repeat his question. A point of order has been raised as to whether the question is in order. I would like to hear it again. Mr FRY —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of reports that Chinese officials will soon approach the Australian Government with a proposal to allow 10,000 Chinese guest workers into the country? Is the Minister concerned at the increasing number of mischievous, racist propaganda statements being peddled within Australia? Mr WEST —I can say quite categorically that there will be no guest workers allowed into Australia either from the People's Republic of China or from any other nation. Under the current Government policy it is simply not possible for such reports to be accurate. Our immigration programs are conducted under a number of categories-family reunion, refugees, skilled labour, employer nomination and business migration being the main ones. The House will see that no category would provide for such a scheme of guest workers. Under the employer nomination scheme, not more than 3,000 people will be granted entry to Australia in this financial year. The criteria for those people to be admitted are that the job is not capable of being filled from within the Australian labour market, that the prospective employer has adequately tested and advertised within the Australian labour market and has made attempts to train a prospective employee. Further, such jobs as are filled from overseas by employer nominations are generally filled in that way because other jobs of resident Australian workers may be dependent upon such jobs being filled from overseas. Quite frankly-and now I come to what I think is the bitter heart of the matter- I question the motive behind the increasing numbers of reports about the so- called excessive immigration program and the so-called Asianisation of that program. Learned pundits in some sections of the newspaper medium urge me to accept 400,000 or 500,000 migrants a year to put a bonfire under the economy so to speak, as they allege is possible. On the other hand, a spate of articles urges us to conduct a moratorium on all immigration, because they question why migrants should take the jobs of Australian workers. Then we get a digression into this false argument regarding favoured Asian immigration. I have already successfully put that argument to rest once and for all in the media in this country. Despite what Professor Blainey or any other learned, respected academic or pundit might say, there is no favouritism or discrimination in our immigration programs; nor will there be. What is more, I do not really think there was discrimination in the programs of the former Government. I hope we can get a bipartisan approach on this matter to quash these increasingly irrational and irrelevant charges. Mr Hand —What does the honourable member for Denison say about that? Mr WEST —I hope the honourable member for Denison in future will take a long, hard look at his public comments. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have had three ministerial statements today, one from the Treasurer, one from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and now another report from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This is not the time that they should be doing such a thing. They can make a ministerial statement at any time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member knows the rulings in the past about the length of answers. Mr WEST —I repeat: There is no favouritism or discrimination in any category of the migration program, be it in the family reunion, the refugees or the business migration category. In the business migration category, not more than 2,000 people will come to Australia this year. In the family reunion category the figure is something like 40,000. When people attack our family reunion program and say that we are deliberately Asianising it because the Asian component has gone up from 25 per cent to 40 per cent, they are talking about the component going up by 6,000 Asians. When it is reduced to those figures, we see how mean, petty and trivial are these charges. I simply conclude on this note: All of those people in this country, including anyone on the Opposition benches who may be contemplating taking this false argument any further, should ask themselves: How rational and logical is it to argue that we should be taking care of our regional trading partners, to expect that we can increase trade with all of the Asian countries, from Japan right through to Indonesia, and, at the same time, argue that because a few more thousand Asians may be coming in-not under any favouritism but because they can simply take advantage of a global program-we should, in effect, be condemning them because they want to come in those small numbers to this country? Mr FISHER —I refer the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to the recent interpretation of the Broadcasting and Television Act by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in relation to the advertising of tobacco products. What action does the Government intend to take to remove the uncertainty now existing within the television industry and the sport and arts communities because of the potential financial loss of sponsorship for sport and the arts? Does the Minister accept the right of anybody or any group to accept or to reject sponsors according to their own policy? Mr JOHN BROWN —My views on this subject are very well known, so I will not canvass them. The Minister for Communications should really be answering this question as the legislation affects his portfolio. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has interpreted that legislation as it is written. Whatever future action is taken by the Government in this area is the direct responsibility of the Minister for Communications. Mrs KELLY —Will the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters inform the Parliament what progress is being made towards the introduction of the Public Service reform package announced by the Government in the White Paper released last December? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for her question. I record the fact of her continuing very close interest in the development of the Government's proposals in this regard. Following the publication of the policy paper late last year I have been involved in a very extensive round of consultations with the unions representing public servants and with the authors of the recent reports on the Public Service and public administration generally, including Mr Reid and Dr Coombs, and the honourable member for Bradfield as well as, of course, the honourable member for Canberra. As a result of those discussions, the Government has now finalised its position and will be moving to the introduction of legislation to effect the changes as soon as possible. As a result of those consultations a small number of relatively minor changes were made to the proposals which really go to the question of strengthening the merit principle within the Public Service in a way which was in accordance with both our policy and the desires of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the unions affiliated with it. So in relation to the question of transfers and the selection of public servants regard will be had to criteria spelling out how selections and transfers should be made and so on. No major changes have been made to the proposals-- An incident having occurred in the Gallery- Mr SPEAKER —I invite honourable members to retain their seats until the Gallery is cleared. Had the Minister for Finance concluded his answer? Mr DAWKINS —No, but I am very close to finishing, Mr Speaker. I indicate that as a result of those consultations it is now clear that there is very wide support, not only within the Public Service but also from people outside the Public Service, for the proposals with which we are proceeding. It is recognised that as a result of those changes which are of a historic nature the Public Service will be more flexible and efficient. This will lead to better government generally. I will provide the honourable member with a more detailed statement of the precise details of the additional changes which have been made since the consultation. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, under the Standing Orders can I ask the Minister to table the document from which he was reading? Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister quoting from a public document? Mr Dawkins —No, I was not. Mr McVEIGH —Does the Minister for Primary Industry recall giving a recent interview to the Stock and Land newspaper in which he admitted that he was unhappy with his Government's massive 200 per cent increase in meat export inspection charges? Was the Minister correctly reported? He is reported to have said: It's not my personal stance . . . I couldn't win on that issue . . . Can the Minister explain why he was unable to convince his Cabinet colleagues of the hardship that such a massive increase will cause to an industry already suffering from the combined effects of a devastating drought and depressed world markets? What action will he take to rectify the situation as indicated by him? Mr KERIN —As the honourable gentleman well knows, I used the phrase: 'I couldn't win on that issue . . '. That expression is understood by people. As I have said constantly in this House and outside, the reason I could not win on this issue was that it had been the policy of the previous Government since 1979. It was entrenched by the previous Government when Peter Nixon, as Minister for Primary Industry, was on the Committee of Review of Commonwealth Functions, the so- called razor gang, and the policy was re-emphasised then. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think I should clarify a matter. When attention is drawn to a matter with regard to standing order 321 two questions should be asked of the Minister. The first question is: Is it a document relating to public affairs? I used the words 'public document'. The second question is: 'Is it confidential?'. I think that in the circumstances I should readdress the question in the proper form. I ask the Minister for Finance: Was it a document relating to public affairs? Mr Dawkins —I was not reading from any document. I had a document in front of me . No doubt the Opposition would be happy to see it in the form of a Press statement at some stage. Mr SPEAKER —There is no need to debate the matter. I had to correct the form of the question I asked. I call the honourable member for Diamond Valley. Mr STAPLES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I am sure that the Minister is aware that today the Parliament has been visited by the 'People for Public Housing.' What does the Government intend to do to alleviate housing-related poverty? Mr HURFORD —It is an understatement to say that there is far too much housing- related poverty in this community. It is a fact that if the amount of money appropriated for housing in the 1975-76 Hayden Budget had been continued during the seven years of the Liberal-Country Party coalition, another $3,750m would have been spent on public housing in those intervening years. It is no wonder that there is all this housing-related poverty in our community . The problem is particularly prevalent in Victoria. I will go through some of the statistics about the numbers of public dwellings per thousand of population. In my State of South Australia there are 36 per thousand. In New South Wales there are 17 per thousand. In Victoria, where most of these people come from, there are nine per thousand. That is because the Bolte, Hamer and Thompson governments in particular sold off the public housing stock of that State. It is no wonder that we have demonstrations such as the unfortunate one we experienced today when we have that sort of record from these discredited people who are now trying to interject. Most of the problem in this housing-related poverty area is due to the fact that so many people have to rely on the private rental market, and 60 per cent of those in the private rental market are spending more than half their income on rent. Many of those people have only a social security benefit as income. It is no wonder that there is such anger in the community in relation to this subject at present. In order to make this even clearer, I inform the House that at the moment in this country there are only 250,000 public dwellings and, on any assessment, about 350,000 family units needing public housing. This Government has embarked on the task of overcoming this terrible problem. Firstly, we are reducing the demand for that public housing by what we have done in the private home ownership sector through the first home owners scheme. Secondly, we have increased our appropriation for public housing enormously. We increased it by 50 per cent in the last Budget from $333m to $500m. We also increased the appropriation for the States so that the States and the Territories could match the amount that we are appropriating for public housing. All in all, in the current financial year there has been a 24 per cent increase in the appropriation for public housing to $1.3 billion. That contrasts with the fact that in real terms the reduction over the seven years of the Fraser Government was 40 per cent. Certainly we have now turned the tide back somewhat, but there is a long way to go and that is why we are renegotiating the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement at present. I acknowledge that demonstrations of the sort we had today are probably not the best way of bringing this problem to the attention of the community, but I also pay tribute to those groups which are seeking to make the problem known in the community. They include not only this group but also Shelter, the Australian Council of Churches, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace and many other institutions which are seeking to make this problem known. At least those institutions are sincere, which is more than can be said for the honourable member for Hume. That grubby action of his has already been condemned by a great number of people on both sides of this House. I declare that it is time the Leader of the Opposition took some action and got rid of him from the front bench of the Opposition. It is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition is not here today to hear this claim made. Mr Howard —If you breach national security you can stay on the front bench. That is all right! Mr Sinclair —I can understand your problems with national security. That doesn't matter! Mr HURFORD —I notice that the Leader of the National Party is interjecting. We cannot expect such standards from him to get rid of the honourable member for Hume, but I believe the Leader of the Opposition should take up the onus now and get rid of this insincerity from his front bench and make sure that something genuine is done about housing-related poverty in this community. Mr HOWARD —My question, which is addressed to the Treasurer, is about the national account figures in respect of which he waxed so lyrical a few minutes ago. Do those national income figures reveal a 5.6 per cent increase in wages in the December quarter, the highest figure since the September quarter 1974 and more than the previous five quarters put together? Did this result in a fall in the growth of gross operating surpluses of non-farm trading enterprises from 9.9 per cent in September to 3.1 per cent in December? Did the reduction in the implicit price deflator over 1983 to 6.1 per cent, revealed in the national income figures and lauded by the honourable gentleman, depend on the benefits of the wages pause which was prematurely ended by the Hawke Government? Does the worrying rise in the non-farm implicit price deflator from the September figure of 0.5 per cent to a December figure of 2.1 per cent reflect the consequences of the Government's premature return to full wage indexation? Mr KEATING —Of course, there will have been some wage movement in the December quarter accounts. Mr Howard —Some! It is the highest since 1974. Mr KEATING —Just hang on. The main reason for that 5.6 per cent figure is strong employment growth. That is the reason it is in there, not simply because of the 4.3 per cent moving through. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can shake his head until it falls off; that is the fact. He may want to deny that there is strong employment growth in this country, but the fact is that there is-and it is in the accounts. Therefore, once one accepts that premise all the other elements of the honourable member's question fall apart. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeks my indulgence. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Yes, Mr Speaker. I claim to have been misrepresented. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —When the House comes to order I will invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to go on with his explanation. Mr HOWARD —Where is 'new idealism'-the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)? In addressing the National Press Club yesterday the Minister for Finance asserted that the $3,000m owing in disputed taxation was a result of the alleged neglect of the administration of taxation during the time I was Treasurer. Mr Robert Brown —That is right. Mr HOWARD —Hang on, don't get too excited about it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the House that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is entitled to make his explanation and that honourable members should not interrupt that explanation by interjection. Mr HOWARD —For the information of the Minister for Finance I should inform him and anybody else who is interested in the matter that that $3,000m represents payment of tax in dispute between the Commissioner of Taxation and individual taxpayers. A sizeable proportion of it is taxation due under tax avoidance schemes which were either outlawed or challenged during the time that the previous Government was in office. For the Minister or anybody else in the Government to assert that in some way we are to blame for that figure being outstanding is to distort the truth completely. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order is that the Minister should have included the $70,000-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Canberra has indicated that she seeks my indulgence. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member claims to have been misrepresented? Mrs KELLY —That is right. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mrs KELLY —I speak in my capacity as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts and as chairperson of the sectional committee on medical fraud and overservicing. On Tuesday in the Senate committee rooms a media conference was held and a statement released on a report by the Rupert Public Interest Movement entitled 'Medifraud-A professionally induced cancer'. The Public Accounts Committee was misrepresented in the media release and the report. The Rupert document alleged that the Public Accounts Committee, in its medical fraud inquiry, neglected to address in its progress report the issue of the quality of senior management in the Department of Health. It further alleged that the Committee was inactive during 1983 and that it failed to protect key witnesses. I have a document, which I do not propose to read, Mr Speaker, refuting these points of detail. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —No. The honourable member knows the guidelines for incorporating documents in Hansard, and that is not within them. She may, however, table it. Mrs KELLY —That being so, Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Mrs KELLY —I wish, then, to make brief comments on the allegations. Mr SPEAKER —No. The honourable member must realise that she is allowed to explain where she has been personally misrepresented. As she has been chairperson of that sub-committee, I have allowed her to proceed, because I think that it is in the interests of the Parliament that that misrepresentation be corrected. But the honourable member cannot debate the matter, and to go through a rebuttal of the arguments in any extraneous paper is clearly debate and not correcting a personal misrepresentation. Mrs KELLY —What I shall do then, Mr Speaker, if leave is granted, is to table a document. Would that be appropriate? May I have leave to explain where I was misrepresented? Mr SPEAKER —No. The honourable member is misusing the process of making a personal explanation in regard to misrepresentation. I think that there are other occasions on which she could correct this matter. Mr PORTER(Barker) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed with a personal explanation. Mr PORTER —In the Age newspaper of yesterday there appeared an article in relation to the amendments moved by the Opposition to the Government's resolution on Aboriginal affairs. That article started off: 'Don't call blacks first owners, says Opposition'. I think that that misinterprets the Opposition's views. I quote from the Australian Associated Press report of the Press conference that I held in relation to that matter, which says: In particular the Opposition felt the term 'conquest' used in the original wording relating to white settlement could be seen as Parliament supporting arguments in favour of Aboriginal sovereignty and a separate Aboriginal nation. I think that the Age statement goes a lot further than the statement that I made . The second misrepresentation appeared in the Canberra Times of yesterday. The specific paragraph to which I refer is a statement by the Canberra Times, as follows: The Opposition spokesman on Aboriginal affairs, Mr Porter (Lib, SA), said that Australia's mineral industry was more important to the national interest than giving Aborigines control. I admit that that statement is not in inverted commas, but I should like to explain that that is not what I said. What I said was: Our resolution proposes that we ensure a just and reasonable framework which enables mining to take place on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land on terms, particularly with regard to access and compensation, which pay proper regard to both their social and cultural interests and to the national interest in the development of Australia's mineral resources . . . In this way we seek to ensure in relation to mining on Aboriginal land, the terms and conditions of approval should take into account the unique Aboriginal interests in land, especially land on which traditional owners continue to reside. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-Honourable members will be aware that in the period since the Hawke Government took office on 5 March 1983, considerable changes have occurred in the Aboriginal Affairs Ministry which are designed to put authority and responsibility firmly into Aboriginal hands. As I have indicated previously to the Parliament, since this Government came into office Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders have been directly and decisively involved in the development of policy and its implementation. To further this involvement consultation with Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders has been reinforced at all levels and through their specialist organisations. Throughout this period of quite significant development, the Government has been considering more fundamental changes to the distribution of portfolio responsibilities to support further development of independent Aboriginal leadership and to improve the effectiveness of the portfolio's delivery of services to the Aboriginal people. As a result of these developments and discussions throughout the portfolio, the Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr John Taylor, put to me a number of proposals for change in the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. One of his suggestions was that the activities of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio would be enhanced by the appointment of a suitable Aboriginal to the position of Secretary to the Department. He was mindful that as we come to 1988, our bicentennial year, with many and strengthening indications of Aboriginal support and understanding for this landmark, we also faced important decisions about national land rights and sacred sites in particular, and also many other issues where a balanced approach could be aided by the right appointment. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Governor-General has today approved the Goverment's recommendation that Mr Charles Perkins be appointed Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. This is an historic appointment at a significant stage in Aborignal development . Mr Perkins, who has given distinguished service to the Aboriginal movement, is the first Aboriginal to be appointed head of a Commonwealth Government department. Mr Perkins is well known to members of this Parliament and throughout the country. He has continued to fight for equality and justice for Aboriginal Australians; he has made achievements over the years which all Australians, I am sure, would applaud. Aboriginal people have cause to be proud of those achievements. Mr Perkins was born on an Aboriginal reserve on the Todd River. One of 11 children, Mr Perkins's mother was of Arunta descent and his father was Kalkadoon descent. Educated in Alice Springs, Adelaide and Sydney, he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Sydney University in 1964, having previously worked in a variety of occupations. Quite early in his life he became associated with the Aboriginal movement and in 1969 joined the Commonwealth Public Service in the former Office of Aboriginal Affairs. Mr Perkins has had a succession of administrative appointments in Aboriginal Affairs, rising to the position of Deputy Secretary in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in September 1979. He was the first Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission on its creation in July 1980, an initiative of the previous Government. Mr Perkins has been involved in the creation and achievements of the Aboriginal Development Commission, which has incorporated in its Act recognition of the past dispossession and dispersal of Aboriginal people. This was the first time such recognition was incorporated in an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament. I know that honourable members will join with me in wishing Mr Perkins well in his new appointment. For my part, as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I look forward to working with him to continue to enhance the situation of Aboriginal Australians. Mr Perkins will assist me in the implementation of a major restructuring of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. As a consequence of Mr Perkins's resignation as Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, I have appointed Mrs Shirley McPherson of Western Australia as Acting Chairman of the Commission, and Mr Mick Miller of Queensland as Acting Deputy Chairman. Both appointments are to be on a part time basis. The Government has decided to establish a new Aboriginal Housing Authority to provide a focus under Aboriginal leadership for all housing functions in the portfolio. Such a fundamental reorganisation is long overdue. It is intended that this new authority will incorporate the existing grant-in-aid housing function which the Aboriginal Development Commission acquired from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in June 1982. It will also assume the functions of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, a company which has provided accommodation for Aboriginals throughout the nation. The new Aboriginal Housing Authority will be asked to find solutions to the housing needs of various Aboriginal groups across Australia, be they on outstations, town dwellers or those who have opted for a less settled form of lifestyle. It will promote the development of appropriate Aboriginal housing technology and the employment and training of Aboriginals in the building and maintenance trade. Certain related functions associated with the provision of infrastructures for housing will be transferred to the new Aboriginal Housing Authority from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Chairman of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, Miss Lois O'Donoghue, CBE, AM, has agreed to accept the position of full time chairperson of Aboriginal Hostels Limited to assist in the implementation of these arrangements and the development of new authority. These changes will enable the Aboriginal Development Commission to concentrate on the social and economic development of Aboriginal people through its functions associated with the acquisition of land, housing loans and enterprises . It will continue to implement the Government's commitment to overcoming the many disadvantages which Aboriginals face through their past dispossession and dispersal. It will be through mechanisms such as the Aboriginal Development Commission that the Government will seek to achieve equality and self- determination for Aboriginal Australians. I will be taking this opportunity to examine the ways the delivery of services in this most important area might be rationalised. The Government will be considering the report of Dr H. C. Coombs on the National Aboriginal Conference and this may lead to some additional restructuring of the portfolio aimed at further positively enhancing the role of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in policy formulation, budgeting and program delivery. Discussions are being held with the relevant unions and staff associations on the new development, and work will begin immediately to ensure that there is an orderly implementation after consultation with Aboriginal organisations. In informing the House of these arrangements I wish to thank the former Secretary of the Department, Mr John Taylor. Through his involvement in these initiatives and by stepping aside on his own initiative Mr Taylor has, I believe , been a part of what will be seen in years to come as a very significant advance in the concept of self-determination for Aboriginal people. Mr Taylor has actively pursued the development of the new arrangements with a view to enhancing Aboriginal leadership and involvement in all aspects of the Government 's Aboriginal Affairs programs. The needs of the Aboriginal community have placed considerable pressure on the officers within the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. The Secretary has had to ensure that the Government's policies were pursued in a prompt manner and I wish to express my personal appreciation to Mr Taylor and his officers for their efforts in this regard. A great deal has been achieved in the last decade since the Whitlam Government put in place the arrangements on which we are now building. That a great deal more needs to be done is readily acknowledged on both sides of this House. This Government stands for reconciliation. That reconciliation will not be achieved until there is a recognition by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal of the worth of each other in a multicultural society where each has an important role to play and a contribution to make. Mr Perkins assumes the position of secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs at a crucial time in our history. I call on the Parliament and this nation to recognise the efforts of this Government in taking initiatives which will help bring this nation together and overcome the very many difficulties which Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders face in Australia today. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The statement to the House by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) deals with two matters: Firstly, the announcement of the appointment of Mr Charles Perkins as head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and, secondly, certain aspects of the restructuring of organisations within the responsibility of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. It is a very general statement and its generality gives rise to a number of important questions which the Minister has failed to address. The Minister is now becoming well known for his hasty and ill-considered statements. In his efforts to make changes in the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio overnight, he consistently fails to adequately consider the implications of his proposals. As I have said before both in this House and outside, the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio is a sensitive one and the Minister time and again fails properly to address his mind to the consequences and ramifications of his impetuous statements. This often results in the raising of expectations amongst the Aboriginal community, which expectations he does not live up to. This statement raises many questions in relation to both the appointment of Mr Perkins and the restructuring of certain organisations within the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. I refer firstly to the Minister's announcement that Mr Perkins is to be appointed head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. This appointment by the Government raises the general question of Aboriginal employment in the Public Service. The Opposition is concerned that there is a significant under-representation of Aboriginal people in our Public Service. Action needs to be taken to redress this situation. We are also deeply aware of the need for special programs-specifically, special education and training programs-to ensure that Aborigines are able to qualify for Public Service positions and obtain them on merit. The Opposition believes that it is extremely important, for the Aboriginal people themselves, for the rest of the Public Service and for the general public, that those appointed are competent to fulfil their role. It is therefore essential that the education and training programs to which I refer are implemented. It has been widely suggested for some time that Mr Perkins would be appointed to the position of Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Therefore, this announcement comes as no surprise. A specific concern of the Opposition in relation to the appointment is the matter of timing. The Minister's statement does not indicate exactly when Mr Perkins is to take up his new position as Secretary to the Department. I raise this matter with the Minister because members of this House will be aware that the Standing Committee on Expenditure is currently undertaking an inquiry into the financial operations of the Aboriginal Development Commission. The ADC inquiry is one of a number which the Expenditure Committee is currently undertaking. Other areas being reviewed by that Committee include assistance to the arts, accommodation and home care for the aged, Telecom Australia's zoning charging policy and so on. In relation to the inquiry into the ADC, I understand that a submission has been sought from the ADC itself. I believe that Mr Perkins would have a valuable role in assisting the Committee with the submission from the ADC. I raise the question of the timing of Mr Perkins's move from the chairmanship of the ADC to the position of Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs because I believe that, if he takes up his new appointment before the Committee undertakes its hearings, difficulties could emerge regarding a conflict of interest and questions of accountability. Such a conflict is not difficult to envisage, especially if the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is called to give evidence in relation to the ADC submission. Despite the fact that I raised this issue publicly last Sunday, the Minister has not indicated in his statement when Mr Perkins will take up his new appointment. The Opposition is of the view that the Government and the Minister ought at least to pay the parliamentary Committee the courtesy of delaying Mr Perkins's move pending the completion of the inquiry. I understand that the Committee does not envisage a lengthy inquiry and that therefore only a small delay in Mr Perkins taking up his new post would be required. I turn now to the reorganisation of some Aboriginal authorities. The Minister has announced that there will be a new Aboriginal housing authority incorporating the existing grant-in-aid housing function from the ADC together with the functions of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. I have been made aware of serious concern in the Aboriginal community that this is only the first move towards a major restructuring of the portfolio responsibilities. The Minister made reference to that in his statement and I believe he should clarify his intentions to this Parliament. I have said for some time that I believe it would be appropriate to bring the Aboriginal accommodation functions under one organisation. I note with some pleasure that the Minister has now acted on that suggestion. I have been concerned that, with the increasing growth of the ADC and the number of functions being absorbed by the ADC, the variety of functions must make it difficult for the ADC to be an efficient organisation covering, for example, housing, enterprise-orientated operations, and more recently, the Aboriginal Sports Foundation and the Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Co. It was in light of this growth of ADC functions last year that I believed it would be more sensible to separate out Aboriginal housing and combine it with Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. Certainly-as the Minister stated and I agree-housing is one of the most pressing problems confronting the Aboriginal community. The House will recall that recently, both the Minister and I made statements in relation to the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs entitled 'Strategies to Help Overcome the Problems of Aboriginal Town Campers'. In our response both the Minister and I highlighted the grave situation facing fringe dwellers and town campers around Australia. In addition, there is no doubt that there are similar problems for Aborigines on many reserves and indeed in traditional areas. It is an area demanding high priority. I referred to the Minister's response to the fringe dwellers report on 1 March. In that speech the Minister said: The task of providing accommodation will be shared by my Department-- that is, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs-- the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, and the Department of Social Security through its homeless persons assistance program, as well as the States. All of these agencies will be responsible, with the National Aboriginal Conference, for consultation about housing. So at the beginning of this month, the Minister was convinced apparently that the task of providing Aboriginal accommodation was to be shared by the Department, the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels and the Department of Social Security, in consultation with the NAC. Now, 28 days later, the Minister has had a sudden and radical change of mind and these functions are to be subsumed by the Aboriginal Housing Authority. This highlights the total lack of planning and policy direction under this Minister. His erratic shooting from the hip style of approach to his portfolio highlights his atrocious administration of his portfolio. Instead of trying to impose uniform land rights on the States when they are in the process of legislating for land rights themselves, he ought to be concentrating on the efficient delivery of services and assistance to overcome the disadvantages facing the Aboriginal community. But it is not just in the Minister's March statement that his lack of adequate planning of the administration of his portfolio is revealed. The Aboriginal Hostels annual report for 1982-83 at page 5 states that the Government agreed last November to review the Aboriginal Hostels charter because it believed the original charter needed to be brought up to date in order that Aboriginal Hostels could 'work more efficiently and with the authority and autonomy it deserves'. I ask the Minister: In the five months since that statement was made, what work has been done in reviewing the charter of Aboriginal Hostels within the framework of its then responsibility which is now irrelevant, given the reorganisation announced today. There are a number of issues which the Minister should have explained in relation to this reorganisation which he has failed to address. Firstly, the Government often professes its policy of consultation with Aboriginal organisations. I wonder whether consultation was entered into before this reorganisation was finalised. Certainly I am aware of concern amongst Aboriginal communities and others about where this Government is taking Aboriginal affairs, and I wonder whether the NAC, supposedly the Government's chief adviser, was consulted about this matter or merely told last Sunday that it was going to occur. Secondly, the Minister has not explained which Aboriginal housing functions will be transferred to the new Aboriginal Housing Authority. He has said that certain related functions associated with the provision of infrastructure for housing will be transferred from the DAA. We are not told which are the functions to which he refers. The third issue I raise is that the ADC is to maintain its housing loan funding. Again, the Minister has not explained why he has separated this from the other housing functions. I can only assume that he believes that these functions, given to the Aboriginal Housing Authority will be welfare orientated, whereas housing loans, perhaps in the Minister's mind, are a separate issue. This matter ought to be clarified by the Minister. The fourth area where the Minister is desperately short on detail is in relation to the administrative changes in the area of personnel. Presumably, the aim of the reorganisation is to have a lean and efficient Aboriginal housing authority and, similarly, a lean and efficient ADC in order that the greatest possible proportion of funds provided for the Aboriginal people actually reach those to whom they are directed and are not absorbed in administration. One would assume that within the ADC and the DAA there is a store of expertise in relation to Aboriginal housing. The Minister has not indicated whether these personnel will be transferred. For example, I trust that the new organisation will not merely duplicate the existing organisations. Just how much Aboriginal Affairs money has been spent in the last six months in organising the Aboriginal housing function which will now be totally wasted because of the Minister's lack of planning, his lack of policy direction and his lack of foresight. The fifth issue which the Minister has not addressed is the renegotiation being undertaken under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The ADC was supposedly playing a major role in consultations involved in that renegotiation. I ask the Minister: Will it continue to have that role or will it be assumed by the new Housing Authority? These are all questions that I believe deserve answers in this place. The Minister has made some other organisational changes which are not included in this statement. He has transferred the Aboriginal Sports Foundation to the ADC and he is in the process of having the Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Co. transferred to the ADC. Neither of these transfers has been handled well and there is concern about this Minister's ability to make such changes in a business-like manner. The morale of the Minister's Department is low because of the Minister's erratic behaviour. It is clear that the Minister needs to apply himself to the proper administration of his portfolio, instead of racing around the country picking fights with his State colleagues and making ill-considered statements. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —I seek leave to make a further statement. Mr Sinclair —Does the Minister want to have a debate on the matter? Mr HOLDING —The Opposition's shadow Minister on Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), has raised some questions and he has asked me to answer them. I am only trying to comply with his request. Mr Sinclair —Why don't you have us take note of the paper and then we can have a debate? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask both the Minister and the Leader of the National Party to make their comments through the Chair. Is leave granted? Leave granted. Mr HOLDING —It is a matter of some regret and concern to me that on the occasion of making an announcement to this Parliament of the appointment of Mr Charles Perkins, the first Aboriginal in the history of the Commonwealth to hold the position of permanent head of a department-this is something which I believe would be a matter of some satisfaction to honourable members on both sides of the House who have, over the years, had a genuine concern with Aboriginal affairs-we have received from the shadow Minister opposite a churlish schoolboy' s response which in no way offered any congratulation or any support. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. Approval was given for the Minister to continue his statement. We are now having a debate on the issue. I welcome such a debate and request-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOLDING —The shadow Minister raised the first question which was: When would Mr Perkins be taking up his appointment? The answer to that is forthwith. He indicated that he felt that that may, in some way, interfere with the capacity of the Standing Committee on Expenditure to perform its functions properly. Mr Porter —It puts him in an unbelievable position. Mr HOLDING —If the shadow Minister, instead of adopting a scissors and paste approach to his responsibilities, actually examined the statute which creates the Aboriginal Development Commission he would realise that the matters which are being investigated go to decisions being made by the Commission and that Mr Perkins was not able, at any stage, to make an individual decision. All the commissioners are still there. A responsible person is being appointed to act as temporary chairman. He was involved in every decision that was made by the Commission. This is currently being examined. The most simple examination would have dealt with that. I am accused also of not consulting with Aboriginal bodies in respect of this appointment. I assure honourable gentlemen opposite that in respect of this appointment all major Aboriginal organisations have congratulated the Government and indicated their very strong support of Mr Perkins's appointment. Mr Tuckey —What about the Arts Council? What is its position about this? Mr HOLDING —I realise the honourable gentleman has a deep conviction about Aboriginal affairs, but the emphasis is on the conviction, not his knowledge of Aboriginal affairs. The shadow Minister accuses me of non-consultation when only this week I was courteous enough to give a response to amendments in respect of a motion which will shortly be debated in the House. Despite my attempts to draw to his attention the fact that the National Aboriginal Conference was meeting last week he did not seek to canvass any of the positions of the Opposition with that responsible Aboriginal organisation. I think that is regrettable. That being his track record and knowing the response his actions have received from Aboriginal organisations, he is in no way entitled to berate anybody about consultation. I will finish on this note: It is time that the Opposition addressed itself far more seriously to the question of Aboriginal affairs. The honourable gentleman opposite says that I have not answered questions which he has put to me in this way. The honourable gentleman opposite has not addressed a single question to me since the House resumed in respect of my portfolio; not on one occasion. He is lazy and he is incompetent. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The language used by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is not only offensive but also totally inaccurate. I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —To which language is the honourable member referring? Mr Howard —The language that my colleague the honourable member for Barker is lazy and incompetent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member, since he has been shadow Minister, has been given full access to the Department and to its officers and he can seek any advice he wants. I suggest that the honourable gentleman use those resources and consult with Aboriginal people. At the same time, if he has any questions he should use the facilities of this House in order to exercise his obligations. Mr Dobie —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The statements made by the Minister at the table impugn the reputation of one of my colleagues, and that is against Standing Orders. I therefore ask that the Minister withdraw those statements according to the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Under standing order 75, will the Minister withdraw? Mr HOLDING —I withdraw. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has , in a rather heated way, become very upset with the substantial matters I have raised. I can understand his concern. As I said, if he gave more attention to the administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs these problems would not arise. The Minister has now provided the information to the House that Mr Perkins's appointment is to commence forthwith. He says that that will not raise a problem with the Expenditure Committee. The Minister will be well aware, despite the fact that he has made an error in his statement-he does not even know the dates of transfer of operations from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the Aboriginal Development Commission-that some of the functions of the DAA were transferred over recent years to the Aboriginal Development Commission. The inquiry has been set up to investigate the financial aspects of the ADC's management. I believe the Chairman of that organisation at the time relevant to the inquiry would be the most appropriate person to assist the inquiry in that regard. The Minister says that many other commissioners know as much as the Chairman and will be able to assist the inquiry. I doubt that. Anyway, we will find that out. If the inquiry seeks the assistance of the DAA and calls on the Secretary to the DAA to give evidence on the ADC, we will have a situation where the Chairman of the body being inquired into, who is now apparently Secretary to the DAA, is giving evidence on behalf of DAA in relation to his previous position as Chairman of the ADC. I believe that that raises very serious questions of conflict of interest. I think it puts Mr Perkins in a totally impossible position. It is irresponsible of the Minister to place Mr Perkins in that position. In relation to the aside the Minister made concerning my consultation regarding the resolution, the Minister well knows that I consulted with the National Aboriginal Conference before formulating the amendments which I proposed to the Minister's motion. Mr Holding —That is not what they say. Mr PORTER —If the Minister denies that, he is obviously talking to the wrong people. I have been to the NAC and I have spoken with the officers in broad terms about the amendments. Once I had approval from my Party to those amendments I went back to the NAC. The NAC has expressed some considerable interest in the amendments and indeed it has amendments of its own to the Minister's motion; so much for the Minister's close consultation. I welcome the opportunity to consult with the NAC. I consulted with the Chairman only yesterday and we have arranged a further meeting for next week. I have no reservations about consulting with the NAC. Finally, the Minister says that I have absolute open access to his Department and he will help me in any way possible. That is typical of the sorts of statements that the Minister is making. He makes these statements, but he never lives up to them. Last May I asked the Minister for a report which he had called for in relation to aspects of the delivery of health services in Queensland. That was last May. He said: 'Sure, I will give you the copy'. Do honourable members know when I got the copy of the report? I got it last month. It took the Minister nine months to deliver the report. Is that open access to his Department? I got it nine months later. Mr Sinclair —A pregnant pause. Mr PORTER —I thank the shadow Minister for his interjection. I do not fall to the depths that the Minister falls to in calling people names. I think that is a fruitless exercise. The true concern of the Opposition is to ensure that the funds provided to assist the Aboriginal people in this country, who face enormous problems, do in fact find their way to the people to whom they are directed. That involves efficient administration. This Minister's actions have shown that he is not properly administering his Department. I repeat my call for him to pay more attention to the administration of his Department rather than try to grandstand and make political points around the country. There are five outstanding questions in relation to the reorganisation of his Department which he has failed to answer. We gave him leave to speak. He has still failed to answer the questions. I suggest he apply his mind to those questions because they are relevant questions concerning the Aboriginal community. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bass (Nr Newman) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's inept handling in allowing the dangerous run-down of the army in this country thus threatening the security of the Australian people and its territories. I call upon those members who approved 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 NEWMAN(Bass)(3.33) —In answer to a question I asked the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) on 2 March in this place, inter alia he said: If the figures given by the honourable member are correct-and I do not dispute them-they are exactly the figures which existed at the time when he went out of office as a Minister of the Crown. By making that statement and a number of other comments in articles and newspapers, the Minister has either set out to mislead the nation or, because he does not know what is going on in a crucial area of his portfolio, has continually demonstrated a massive ignorance and incompetence. What is the actual situation? The Australian Army's ability to deal with low and mid-level threats depends on the Regular Division. This is the basic force structure which would be needed to meet an immediate threat or which would be capable of rapid expansion as a threat became apparent. That function has become even more significant in this last year because of a deteriorating situation in our own region, with the considerable build-up of the Soviet Union in Vietnam and the Indian Ocean, the continuing problem of the conflict in Cambodia and the worrying tensions in West Irian and Papua New Guinea. In this last year the efficiency and capacity of the Division to meet a threat has become more urgent in the light of the Government's expressed policy of standing on our own feet without expecting others to help us. Thus, Australia 's strategic situation has changed. That is partly as a result of external factors and partly as a result of conscious decisions by the Hawke Government. The Minister's response has not been to increase defence strength in response to the changed situation but to run down Australia's defences while at the same time claiming that the situation is satisfactory. On a number of counts the capability of the Army's Regular Division has been seriously blunted by the Hawke Government's policy and the inadequacies of the Minister for Defence. Cuts in a range of critical areas have been made in the last year. They include unit strengths, recruiting and reinforcement rates, resources for training and the Army Reserve. I will deal firstly with unit strengths. All units in the division are restricted below their war establishment to special peacetime levels. A number of units have now been reduced below these peacetime authorisations. These reductions occurred in the last year. These units constitute the corps of the Regular Division. They should represent the cutting edge of a credible defence deterrent for Australia. To fall below the already dangerously low peacetime authorised establishment means that as fighting units they are not capable of either conducting effective training or carrying out their role in war. To illustrate the point I will take the case of the 8-12 Medium Artillery Regiment. This unit provides all the artillery support for the 1st Brigade at Holsworthy. In operations its support would be indispensible. This unit is to be equipped with the newly purchased M198 153 millimetre howitzer from the United States of America. The efficient introduction of this new gun will be delayed because there will not be enough gunners trained to man the equipment as the gun comes on stream. Again, take the case of the infantry battalions. The division is organised to have nine battalions. Of these, three are non-existent, two are organised on light scales in the Operational Deployment Force in Townsville and the remaining four are on greatly reduced peacetime establishments. The Government has allowed two of these four battalions to fall below already severely restricted strengths . This means that about one-half of what remains of the infantry units of the Division have lapsed below levels which might constitute a credible infantry fighting unit. These units might be able to conduct platoon or company training- just; but to train or fight as battalions would simply not be on. However, the position is actually much worse. If the balloon goes up plans have already been laid to decimate the battalions in Enoggera to reinforce the Townsville battalions. This is a clear admission that the Operational Deployment Force at Townsville, earmarked to meet immediate low level threats, is not sufficiently manned to meet an emergency. It also means that in the Division we can expect to have only two very under-manned and badly equipped battalions presently training in an airborne and mechanised role. I turn secondly to Army recruiting. Recruiting in 1983-84 has been reduced. Comparing January to June 1984 with the same period in 1983 shows that it is expected that the flow of recruits to the Army will be down by at least 15 per cent. This means that reinforcements to under-strength units in the Division will take place only at a trickle. The result of this Government action is that the dangerous situation which the Minister has allowed to develop in the Division cannot be corrected quickly. In fact, if retirement rates increase or re-engagement levels fall-which is not unlikely given the economic climate and the Government's meddling with conditions of service-the situation could well become worse. This stinginess is in sharp contrast to the Government's generosity in promoting a 10 per cent growth in the Public Service over the last two years. Thirdly, as far as training is concerned, major restrictions have been placed on the activities of the Division. In the case of the 1st Brigade at Holsworthy- one of the key fighting formations in the Division-I instance examples of the prohibitive nature of these restrictions. The Brigade is allowed to exercise only every second year. Battalions are allowed to exercise only once a year. The Cavalry Regiment is allowed to train with tanks only every second year. Mr Porter —Which is the on year? Mr NEWMAN —It gets much worse. Gunners on the Unit's fighting vehicles are restricted to only two rounds of 76-millimetre ammunition per year. It takes three rounds to range the gun. The Mechanised Infantry Battalion is allowed to train for only two weeks a year with the Tank Regiment at Puckapunyal. There is not sufficient allocation of small arms ammunition for soldiers to complete the requirement for annual weapon training. Thus, incredible as it may be, infantry soldiers will not be able to become proficient in the use of their basic weapons. There is an acute shortage of small arms blanks and training pyrotechnics for exercises. Even the armed forces' freeze dried ration packs are on a very restricted availability. The availability of Royal Australian Air Force helicopters to the Army is almost non-existent. In infantry battalions 106 -millimetre anti-tank gun ammunition availability is sufficient only to introduce troops to the weapon, not to train them. I could go on and on. There is a disastrous situation in relation to the Army Reserve. At present the Division would meet a low-level threat only with difficulty. Deficiencies I have described but also other grave weaknesses as in air defence, mobility, parachute capability, training and reserve stocks to name but a few, would make that task very hazardous. To sustain operations for any length of time, given the weaknesses in logistic support, would be difficult. This, of course, has been more than amply comfirmed in disclosures to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in recent days. But the Army's ability to meet a modest, mid -level threat is almost impossible. Given the wholesale reduction in the ability of the Division to go to war on its present Regular Army basis the availability of a trained Army Reserve to reinforce and augment the Division may be the only way a mid-level threat could now be met. The Army Reserve is rapidly reaching a stage where it will not be able to make that essential contribution. Over the last year the Army Reserve has suffered a number of assaults from the Hawke Government which may have left it mortally wounded. The Government has hit reservists' fundamental conditions of service by taxing their pay. It has cut back their rations, petrol, transport and ammunition; it has savaged the number of training hours and it has even slashed voluntary, without pay, training activities. The Government has cut training hours for the Reserve so that many commanders in the Army, both Reserve and Regular, believe that it will be an impossible task to carry out efficient training. The restrictions mean that training will be confined to the most basic and elementary levels. The fundamental need to integrate Reserve units with Regular units, particularly to fill the gaps in Regular units and formations, is now beyond reach. The fact is that the Army has significantly deteriorated as a fighting force over the last year and its situation is worsening even now. The Division is not in a position to meet Australia's defence requirements as they have been defined by the Hawke Government. The Government is very lucky that the Army is manned by dedicated, very competent men and women. It is their loyalty and qualities of leadership which have kept the lid on the mess in which the Army now finds itself. What is that mess? I will give some examples. The 3rd Infantry Battalion is training to achieve a reduced battalion airborne capability of 360 men. This is a very important capacity for the Army to develop. At the moment there are not enough main parachutes, reserve parachutes or even protective headgear to meet that very limited aim. The cavalry regiment, responsible for reconnaissance for the Army, has only enough resources to train officers in technique. It has neither the equipment nor the men to carry out its role. It has no surveillance equipment, only very limited assault troops and is not allowed to train with tanks except on a very limited basis. The 5th/7th Infantry Battalion is training as a mechanised infantry battalion. This unit should be the core of a mechanised force with hitting power and mobility. But only two companies have been equipped with vehicles. There are enough armoured personnel carriers in Army stocks to equip the remaining company but there is not enough money to buy the spares to maintain the vehicles. Thus they remain in stock unissued, unused. The fact that the Battalion is allowed to train with tanks for only two weeks per year is a scandal. Two weeks training together is an impossible limitation to impose. I will cite the 1st Brigade's 101 Workshop's position. This is a workshop unit which provides critical repair and maintenance facilities for the Brigade's vehicles, weapons and other essential equipment. In this unit the kitchens have been condemned because of their condition; the building is infected with cockroaches; the troops' bathrooms, latrines and quarters are disgraceful. Working areas are no better. Trade unions would have long since refused to allow their members to work in such conditions. Attempts to rehouse the soldiers in unused migrant accommodation at East Hills have so far not been successful. At East Hills good, modern accommodation exists which has not been used since October last year. For a very modest sum of about $600,000 the area could be made ready to accept immediately soldiers who are presently so badly housed. Housing conditions at Holsworthy Army area are still below standard. It is estimated that out of 2,000 married quarters at Holsworthy , 1,200 are substandard. Attempts are being made to refurbish some tiny, substandard fibro houses, but the money is being wasted. It costs about 75 per cent of what it would cost to build new houses, that is, at least $30,000 per house. After all this money has been spent the houses will still be tiny and will become major maintenance problems in three or four years. Carpets are being laid in the houses but only to seal the gaps between the floorboards. In the Second Military District covering New South Wales it is estimated that there is a $30m debt at least for repair and maintenance work required to be carried out. The 1983-84 repair and maintenance funds provided to the Army and the Department of Housing and Construction were about $11.3m. Compare this with last year's figure of approximately $11.5m. When inflation is taken into account this represents a serious reduction in funds for 1983-84. Of this amount only about $4m is available towards reducing the $30m backlog of maintenance work. As if this dismal picture were not enough, units have great difficulty in obtaining replacements of certain sizes of combat boots and jungle greens for soldiers who need replacements for worn-out equipment. Not only is there a shortage of parachutes and armoured vehicles but it would appear that the Army is to go barefoot as well. All of these problems have to be added to the assault that the Government has made on Service pay and retirement benefits. I speak, of course, about such sad examples as the 30 per cent tax levy on retirement benefits and the Medicare penalty on married members who have working wives. The Minister for Defence is an incompetent Minister. From the very outset of this Government he has put his foot in it. He allowed the RAAF to be used in spy flights over Tasmania but abandoned the Navy Fleet Air Arm. He has ripped into the Services by reducing their retirement benefits, taking away the Citizen Military Forces' tax concessions and generally reduced pay levels by insisting that Medicare levies be paid from salaries. He has damaged Australia's relationships with its allies by his stupid and heavy-handed handling of the docking of allied warships in what has now become known as the Invincible affair . Today we have exposed the dangerous state to which he has reduced the Army Division, the critical force structure upon which the Army builds its whole capabilities and strengths. He is guilty not only of running down the strength of the Army but also of attempting to cover up what he has done. The Minister, in his public speeches, has been preaching a commitment to maintaining an effective Army whilst, in reality, he has been taking away its boots and bullets . He has attempted to mislead the House; he has attempted to mislead the nation. He has been found out. He should be sacked. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(3.48) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Newman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is not the Minister going to answer these accusations, these criticisms? It is a disgrace that the Minister is not getting up to meet the valid criticisms. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —That is not a point of order. Mr CROSS —I am very sorry that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), who had a long association with the Australian Defence Force, descended to the levels to which he descended today in making totally unwarranted personal attacks on the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) for the state of the Australian Defence Force. He suggested that this Government, having been in office for just over a year, was responsible for the disgraceful rundown of the Australian Defence Force under the many years of the Fraser Government. Plenty of things are wrong in the Australian Defence Force. There is plenty of room for improvement. The honourable member should judge the Government by the state of the Defence Force at the end of the seven years of Hawke government. The honourable member has presented to the House an indictment of his own Party which is now justly in opposition. He made personal attacks on the Minister for Defence. In a year the Minister cannot overcome the neglect of people such as the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) in his period of stewardship of the Australian Defence Force. Let us look at the record. In the Budget that was brought down in August last year there was an increase of the order of 4 per cent in the appropriation for the Australian Defence Force. That is a very respectable increase. Mr Steele Hall —Tell us about the boots and bullets. Mr CROSS —I will deal with that. We should take into account the state of the economy in this country which was in tatters when the Government took over, the needs of the Force at that time and its characteristics. Let us look at the situation. Honourable members opposite, who are now justly on the Opposition benches, on several occasions raised expectancies in the Defence Force for levels of funding which they never provided. Mr Cadman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We need an assurance that the Minister will speak in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Cadman —He is in the chamber. The public of Australia should know that he is refusing to answer these accusations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! When the occupant of the chair is standing, the House will be silent, and I mean both sides of the House. The interjections which have been coming across the House are not good natured banter. I would expect that, since the honourable member for Bass was heard in silence, the House will accord the same degree of courtesy to the honourable member for Brisbane. Mr CROSS —I will quote from comments made by the people who advise the present Government, and formerly advised the previous Government, as to what is their view of the Australian Defence Force as it stands today. Recently, the Chief of the Defence Force Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville McNamara, said: Australians have every reason to be proud of the reputation enjoyed by the Defence Force. It is manned by highly skilled men and women dedicated to attaining the highest levels of professional skill. Our capabilities are progressively improving. The Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General Sir Phillip Bennett, on the same day said: Emphasis is being placed in the Australian Army on improving the level of individual military and technical skills and leadership. The Australian Army is capable of meeting Australia's immediate defence requirements. The Army Reserve, with a strength of around 30,000, continues to provide a base for future expansion. Mr Aldred —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. That is a totally untrue statement. In the last 12 months the Army Reserve has been totally withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr CROSS —I find it absolutely shocking that the honourable member would attack the Chief of the General Staff, who cannot defend himself, in this House, for a statement which he has made. Mr Sinclair —He is the Chief of the Defence Force Staff. Get your priorities right. Mr CROSS —He is not yet the Chief of the Defence Force Staff, not until 13 April . The former Minister has obviously lost touch with these things very quickly. We have talked about a rundown in the reserves. Let me remind honourable members what the Minister for Defence said during the Budget debate last year. He talked about the fact that 46 per cent of defence expenditure was provided for manpower , a reduction from 50 per cent in the previous year. That, of course, was partly due to the wage pause. He goes through various manpower matters in detail. He then stated: The Government plans during this year to hold the strength of the Army Reserve at 30,000, the level set by the previous Government. There will be small increases in the Naval Reserve and the Air Force Reserve over the year. Of course, the Army Reserve's current strength is 31,944 and that is some measure above the ceiling authorised by the former Fraser Government. The 1983- 84 budget for the Army is close to $1,400m-about the same as it was last year in real terms. Let us look at the budget for the current year and what it means. Anyone who looks at the defence budget for this year has to take on board the fact that this is the first year in which a massive commitment is made to the FA18, the Hornet fighter. Mr Burr —We made those decisions. Mr CROSS —Of course, the former Government did. But it did not pay for it. In the previous Government's last Budget it allocated $170m to pay for the Hornet. This year we have to find $500m and next year $630m to maintain that program. We are not arguing about that. But an item of that level of expenditure, of course, cannot but have its effect on the Budget. The problem that we have inherited- every honourable member in this House who has an interest in defence knows the facts-is that we have a long lead time in acquiring equipment. There has been a rundown over quite a number of years. It will take a long lead time to repair the damage done by the former Fraser Government. Indeed, I remind honourable members that at the time of the Soviet Union intervention in Afghanistan the government of the day told the Defence Force it could expect a 7 per cent per annum increase in real terms in its budget. It did not provide that. In fact, in the year in which the right honourable member or New England took over the responsibility of the ministry of Defence, there was a reduction in real defence spending by 1.7 per cent in the budget of that year. This is the man who sits at the table and interjects about a Minister who is trying to tidy up the mess. Mr Sinclair —Who is not even responding. It is his responsibility. Mr Howard —He is squibbing his responsibilities. Mr CROSS —It is very easy to say things like that, particularly if members of the Opposition do not want to hear the facts. They will have their turn. A range of matters have been introduced to us as facts by the honourable member for Bass . First of all, he talked about our deteriorating environment. Then he spoke about standing on our own feet. I hope nobody is criticising the Australian Labor Party Government for wanting to see this nation have a greater capacity to stand on its own feet. He referred to various cutbacks and the state of Army housing as if it were the responsibility of this Government that Army housing and cutbacks got to this stage. The cutbacks have been going on for years. As Chairman of a sub-committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I recently visited Darwin with colleagues from both sides of the House to look at accommodation in Larrakeyah Barracks which have not been painted for 15 years. Are we then to be blamed, after having been in office for a year, for the fact that the houses at the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Darwin, have not been significantly repaired in any way since the time of Cyclone Tracy? Cyclone Tracy was a long way back in the past. It is very easy to use a broad brush approach and list all of the deficiencies that exist. We do not deny that some of those deficiencies exist. The Minister took over the management of the Defence Force from the right honourable member for New England and the deficiencies existed at that time. It will take a significant amount of time to improve that situation. Everywhere the parliamentary committee went it was told by serving defence personnel of projects that had been promised by the previous Government but had been progressively cut out of the Budget. The honourable member said that Army recruiting had been reduced. Let us also take into account the fact that the Defence Force is responding to an economic situation, where many officers and senior people in the Defence Force, because of the difficult employment situation outside the Force-surely the Opposition does not blame this Government for that, because that is another of the situations that we inherited from the previous Government-and who would otherwise not have stayed in the Force, are re-enlisting. Is the Opposition advocating that we should decline to recruit those people, that we should put them out in the market place in these very difficult economic circumstances? At a time when the massive cost of this equipment program is starting to be shown in the Budget, the Opposition is saying, in effect, one of two things. Mr Newman —You have increased the Public Service by 10 per cent. What about the Army? Why not spend that money on the Army instead of the wretched Public Service? Mr CROSS —The Labor Government will stand on its record. Honourable members should look at the increase of $500m in the defence budget of this year, a larger increase both in real and absolute terms than the previous Government made. They should look at the way in which new equipment programs, such as the ordering of the frigates, are being slotted in. It is not hard to go around the country and see areas in which we could improve. These improvements are taking place, but there is a long lead time. The structure of the Australian armed force is very much determined by equipment ordered in the 1960s. The equipment that we order now will be around at the turn of the century. The honourable member for Bass referred to Defence Force pay and reserve force pay. The question of reserve force pay has been referred to the Coldham Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay with a view to bringing the pay up to adequate standards. Members of the Army Reserve have been deliberately underpaid over the years. We have been doing things on the cheap. During the last week the Minister for Defence announced a new arbitral system, a tribunal to set Defence Force pay. Honourable members opposite talk about morale. The Labor Government came to office in 1972. In the following year we gave the armed forces an across the board increase in pay. They waited until 1981 for the Coldham Committee to give a further upgrading. The present Opposition was not prepared to find the money in the Budget that year and kept them waiting a further year until 1982, which was when those increases flowed through the system. Yet honourable members opposite talk to us about Defence Force morale. The record of the Opposition on defence when in government is absolutely disgraceful. Mr Newman —What about the boots? You have fellows walking around without any dashed boots. Mr CROSS —That is totally untrue. Mr Newman —It is absolutely true. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) — Order! I warn the honourable member for Bass. Mr CROSS —The speech by the honourable member for Bass about the Australian Defence Force was a shocking indictment of the Fraser Government. The Labor Government now in office is setting out to redress these problems in very difficult circumstances. I am very proud indeed of the quality of those members of the Defence Force whom the Committee recently met in northern Australia. I am very pleased with the programs which the Government is setting in train to solve the problems we inherited from the Fraser Government. It is total humbug to suggest that this Government or any other government in the world could redress in one year of government the neglect of the Australian Defence Force over the seven years of the Fraser Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.03) —The first question which must be asked is: Where is the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes)? Where has he been for the last 12 months and what is he doing for the defence of this country? Has he been gagged, we must ask, for incompetence? Has he been or is he about to be relieved of his job ? Why is he not answering the detailed charges that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) has levelled at his administration of the Department of Defence ? It is unheard of in this House that a Minister does not speak up for his Department under such circumstances. It is no wonder that the members of his Department, both civil and military, have lost confidence in him. Let me turn to the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), who was sold a dump in no uncertain terms by the Minister and who made very heavy weather of an almost impossible job. Why does the Minister not get up and speak for himself? The honourable member for Brisbane knows very well that all the things that the honourable member for Bass has been talking about, and which I will be talking about, were told to him when he visited Townsville. It is no use for him to say that he has been around the country and that everything is sweet and rosy, because he knows very well that it is not. Let us hear some refuting of the charges that have been made. The Government is placing the security of this country in jeopardy because the Army is becoming non-effective, as has been outlined by the honourable member for Bass. Let me give some more examples of what is happening in the Australian Army. I illustrate this with a sad tale which was told to me a few weeks ago by a senior non-commissioned officer in a field force unit in north Queensland, one of the units which would be in the forefront of any engagement into which Australia might be forced. Ammunition is so short in his unit that he and other members of his platoon club together, with their own money, and go down to the local store to buy it. In 1984 soldiers are buying their own ammunition to try to become proficient with their basic weapon, which is a rifle. I say to the Minister for Defence: Let us have an answer to that one. Soldiers are buying their own ammunition because the Department cannot provide it. Mr Lindsay —That is not true. Mr WHITE —That is true. The Government says that we are living in an uncertain world, which is true. There is a Russian build-up in submarines and aircraft in Vietnam. Yet what are soldiers in Australia doing? Buying their own ammunition to try to train themselves. In other units there has been a shortage of some sizes of boots. So not only are infantry soldiers buying their own ammunition but also infantry soldiers, because there are no vehicles and because there are no helicopters, are walking everywhere with no damn boots, for God's sake! There is a shortage of claymore mines, a very basic infantry weapon. There are soldiers in the Army who have never seen a claymore mine. A training unit in north Queensland keeps a few on the shelf. When soldiers come from other units soldiers there trot them out and say: 'This is a claymore mine'. They are handled like gold because they cannot get them. All the night-viewing devices which used to be prevalent in infantry battalions have now been withdrawn. Helicopter training hours are almost non-existent, as is track mileage. The list goes on and on. All this has happened in the last 12 months. How can the Government claim that the field force is effective? Is it any wonder that scores of people doubt our capacity to fight in a modern war. The will is not lacking. As the honourable member for Bass quite rightly pointed out , the only thing that keeps the Army going is the dedication and professionalism of the people in it. If one went around the Army and generally talked to any senior officers, junior officers, any NCOs, or any soldiers, in fact, they would tell one what I am telling honourable members. Honourable members should read what the Chief of Defence Force Staff and others had to say in Perth at a defence seminar recently. Read what the 'Returned Services League Defence Paper 1984' says. Read what the Australian newspaper says week after week. Read what any retired serviceman says from time to time in the media. Let me go on to speak about a few more deficiencies. Our major field formation is the division. It is a skeleton in structure. We have one division, I might add, for a huge country which has 15 million people-probably the lowest ratio of arms of any developed country in the world. The cutting edge of the Australian Army is a skeleton. The forefront of the division is the operational deployment force based on 3 Brigade in Townsville. The only reason it operates is the dedication of its men and women who are loyal to the country, and I might add to the Government, to a man. But they are despairing, as they should be. In the ODF , the first unit that would be deployed in any action, they are on restricted manpower establishments. They have little or no air mobility. There are four helicopters, which in normal circumstances would lift a platoon, but because the platoons are so reduced four helicopters would probably lift two platoons without any trouble. There is almost no ground transport. There are 40 trucks in the whole brigade with 40 drivers for around-the-clock operations. So for two- thirds of the time the trucks are grounded. Weapons, machineguns and rifles, are almost without exception over 20 years old and sometimes in dangerous condition. There is no anti-tank capacity whatsoever in the brigade, no radar, no air defence and no parachute capacity. There is a parachute capacity in Sydney, which is good for the unit which is training as a para-unit. But if it is required, it would not be the ADF that does the job but a battalion from Sydney. There is no amphibious training and no reconnaissance element in the whole of the ADF. It is short of ammunition, mines, flares, transport and men. It is short of everything that counts. Let us talk about the deployment of the ADF. Let me quote what the Minister, who is not to speak in this debate, said in his submission to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on 20 March. It is signed on the front page 'G. Scholes, Minister for Defence'. This is his submission: Our reserves of ammunition, weapons and spare parts would not support any sustained combat involvement of our forces beyond low level operations. Of course, that is absolutely true. I put this to the Minister: I do not think that in the present climate of what he has done to the Army we could support one brigade in operation for any length of time. It has been put to me by more than one person that we would be flat out deploying and supporting one battalion in the field for any length of time. Mr Scholes —What did they say in 1982? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Minister will not interject. Mr Newman —If you are going to interject, get up and debate it. Go on, get up and debate it. You are gutless. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for McPherson to resume his seat. I will not again ask the honourable member for Bass to cease interjecting. Mr WHITE —One has to ask: How will the ADF get to wherever it is supposed to be going? How will it move when it gets there, provided it has boots? What weaponry would be available and how would we support it? One could go on and on. The 6th Brigade in Brisbane has a battalion strength of 400. If everybody came back from leave and courses and no one was sick that brigade might get 300 bayonets in the field-that is, if it was not supporting the ADF in the field where 200 men would be committed. It is a joke. The Army Reserve may have 15,000 effective personnel . One training group in Brisbane has just had 3,000 man days cut off its training element. The artillery battery in my unit lost 12 men the other day. They each handed in their gear and said: 'If you are not going to let us train, I am off'. The story goes on and on. I conclude by saying- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.13) —I accuse the Liberal and National parties. For over 31 years they had the trust of the Australian people to provide a defence force for this country. They abandoned that responsibility. They have left this country in the most defenceless state it has been in since World War II. I will speak to this House today about the criminal neglect and irresponsibility of those honourable members on the other side of the House who had the trust of the Australian people to provide an adequate defence force for this country. It causes me great distress to find the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) sheltering under the loyalty of servicemen of this country, accusing them of not performing their tasks and accusing senior officers of not giving competent, honest and adequate advice to governments over the years. That he should do that is an indictment. The matter for discussion proposed by the honourable member for Bass reads: The Government's inept handling in allowing the dangerous run-down of the army in this country thus threatening the security of the Australian people and its territories. Sir, I say to you that that is an indictment of the criminal neglect and inadequate performance of the Liberal-National party during the 31 years it was in office. Why did it not establish an adequate defence capability for this country during that time? Why did it not instil in the Australian community an awareness of the need to provide adequate defence for this country? Why did it distort the defence budget of this nation by reducing actual expenditure during the seven years the Fraser Government was in power? Why did it not establish an adequate procurement program for our defence forces during that time? Mr Aldred —On a point of order; why is the Minister not taking part in the debate? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —That is not a point of order. Mr LINDSAY —When the previous Government was asked by the present Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) when he was in opposition to provide an adequate defence force, to re-arm the defence forces of this country, why did it criminally abandon its statutory responsibility in that area? Let us look at the strength of the Australian Army today. In a country of over 15.5 million people we have one infantry division; one armoured regiment; two cavalry regiments; four artillery regiments; one field engineer regiment; one construction regiment; one field survey regiment; five signal regiments; one special air services regiment; one aviation regiment; one transport regiment; one transport air support regiment-- Mr White —What does all that mean? Mr LINDSAY —This is the record of 31 years of criminal neglect of the defence forces of this country. Wherever we debate this issue throughout the length and breadth of this country the record of the Liberal-National party will be hung up to show the people of Australia how it has betrayed the interests of this country. It is also reported that, as a result of that 31 years experience, 36 M198 150-millimetre howitzers are now on order. That is the record for the Australian Army in 31 years of Liberal-National party rule. Let us look at the attitude of defence spokesmen at that time. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), when Minister for Defence in 1983, wrote in the Pacific Defence Reporter an article on the subject: 'Time on our Side'. In responding to a report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence he made the following remarks: Global nuclear war remains improbable, Australia would not be a principal threat in such a conflict. Mr Scott —Who said that? Mr LINDSAY —The right honourable member for New England. He went on to say: The large armies in our region are largely irrelevant to Australia's defence problems, because they are currently unsupported by the substantial maritime and air resources needed to launch and sustain a major military action against Australia as an island nation. These fundamental considerations provide us with considerable assurance for our own future security. Australia is able, with its present planned military capabilities, to make low or intermediate level attacks against it costly and hazardous. That article was written in February 1983 by the right honourable member for New England. He goes on to say: Furthermore we are well equipped to expand these capabilities in the face of an emerging threat. Again I quote from the right honourable member for New England. A little over a year ago he said: The long lead-time in years necessary for personnel recruiting and training and manufacturing and acquisition of military hardware determine our defence capacity is at least five and almost certainly 10 years hence. It is the Government's view that this period is within the time frame necessary to identify possible threat ahead and so permit timely expansion, should it be believed necessary. That was the prognosis of the spokesman on defence in the previous Liberal- National party Government in 1983. I say this: There is a need to re-arm the defence forces in this country. There is a need to re-equip the defence forces of this country. There is a need to breathe a breath of fresh air into the Army, Navy and Air Force of this country. Last year the Hawke Labor Government, an authentic Australian government, increased defence expenditure by 4 per cent in real terms at a time of obvious economic difficulty. Contrast that with the Liberal-National party Government expenditure in its last year of office of increasing defence expenditure in real terms by 1.7 per cent. During the seven disastrous years of that criminal neglect by the Liberal-National party Government, defence expenditure increases averaged 2.5 per cent. The fact is that the present Government is prepared to spend more on defence in real terms than the Fraser Government ever did. Let me make a few remarks about northern defence. Recently I visited Larrakeyah Naval Base. There I saw a naval base that had no air defence whatever, and naval craft that had very little defensive capability, let alone offensive capability. I saw the seamen's quarters, which were run down and rat infested, with no privacy for the seamen. I saw, also, that Cockatoo Island Dockyard in Sydney, a major re-equipment facility for the Navy, was run down and dirty, with papers blowing everywhere. The place was a disgrace. I asked persons involved what the Liberal-National party Government did during those 30 years. I asked the question of the Captain at Larrakeyah Naval Base. I asked the question of the Captain at Cockatoo Island Dockyard. On each occasion the answer was: 'Nothing'. So I ask: What about regional surveillance and northern defence? We have the 3rd Brigade based at Townsville, a fine, loyal body of men. Yet only recently the Chief of Joint Operations and Plans at the Department of Defence, in a statement dated 24 February 1984-only recently-had this to say about the 3rd Brigade: The Operational Deployment Force at Townsville is kept at war strength and ready for operations. The remainder form the expansion base. The statements made by the Opposition in this debate indicate clearly that the members of the 3rd Brigade have abandoned their posts. I object to those statements. I find it insulting that Opposition members should cast aspersions on members of the 3rd Brigade. Mr White —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Why does the honourable member keep quoting someone else? Why does he not-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —There is no point of order. Mr LINDSAY —The people of Australia have always turned to the Australian Labor Party in times of need to re-arm this country. Our allies turned to this country in the Second World War. The people of Australia turned to the ALP on 5 March 1983. We have accepted the task of re-arming Australia and providing an adequate defence force. It is a task that we will have great honour in achieving, in expanding our defence forces during the next 20 years of Labor government in Australia. It is a task that we will achieve by providing, for the first time in our nation's history, an adequate defence force. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.24) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party from moving: That this House censures the Minister for Defence for his failure to address the serious deficiencies in the Australian Defence Force revealed by the members for Bass and McPherson in the matter of public importance today, and for his refusal to guarantee the provision of sufficient resources to rectify the Australian Defence Force deficiencies in the 1984-85 Budget. I have moved the motion because there have been very serious deficiencies revealed by the two spokesmen for the Opposition in this debate. They are deficiencies which require a response from the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) , on a matter which goes to the core of morale and capability at a time when the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has forced on Australia a greater measure of self-sufficiency than has ever been required before. Unless I move for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow this censure motion to be considered, this House this afternoon will see the Minister for Defence failing to respond on matters of critical importance to the whole Australian nation. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the right honourable member for New England be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— 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.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Charlesworth, R. I. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Alfred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Millar, P. C.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) Moore, J. C.Drummond, P. H. Newman, K. E.Edwards, Harry O'Keefe, F. L.Fife, W. C. Porter, J. R.Fisher, P. S. Robinson, IanGoodluck, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Groom, R. J. Ruddock, P. M.Hall, Steele Shipton, R. F.Hawker, D. P. M. Sinclair, I. McC.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D. Jacobi, R. Carlton, J. J.Klugman, R. E. Coleman, W. P.O'Neil, L. R. T. Andrew, J. N.Cunningham, B. T. Cadman, A. G.Child, J. Cameron, Ewen Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the motion seconded? Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(4.33) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. This inadequate and incompetent Minister-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for Bass be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— 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 Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Charlesworth, R. I. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. 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.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Millar, P. C.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) Moore, J. C.Drummond, P. H. Newman, K. E.Edwards, Harry O'Keefe, F. L.Fife, W. C. Porter, J. R.Fisher, P. S. Robinson, IanGoodluck, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Groom, R. J. Ruddock, P. M.Hall, Steele Shipton, R. F.Hawker, D. P. M. Sinclair, I. McC.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D. Jacobi, R. Carlton, J. J.Klugman, R. E. Coleman, W. P.O'Neil, L. R. T. Andrew, J. N.Cunningham, B. T. Cadman, A. G.Child, J. Cameron, Ewen Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.40) —The Government treats with contempt the motion of the right honourable member for the New England (Mr Sinclair). He is the shadow Minister for Defence and he did not speak. They put up a lightweight, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman)-- Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I move: That the Minister be not further heard. Mr YOUNG —It is like putting Hawthorn against the Yarrawonga Thirds. I move: That the question be now put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —The question is: 'That the question be now put'. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I moved a procedural motion that the Special Minister of State be not further heard. That motion should be disposed of first. Question put: That the Special Minister of State be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Millar, P. C.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) Moore, J. C.Drummond, P. H. Newman, K. E.Edwards, Harry O'Keefe, F. L.Fife, W. C. Porter, J. R.Fisher, P. S. Robinson, IanGoodluck, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Groom, R. J. Ruddock, P. M.Hall, Steele Shipton, R. F.Hawker, D. P. M. Sinclair, I. McC.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D. 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 Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Charlesworth, R. I. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Carlton, J. J. Jacobi, R.Coleman, W. P. Klugman, R. E.Andrew, J. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Cadman, A. G. Cunningham, B. T.Cameron, Ewen Child, J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The time allowed under standing order 91 for the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders has expired. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.Cowan, D. B. Millar, P. C.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) Moore, J. C.Drummond, P. H. Newman, K. E.Edwards, Harry O'Keefe, F. L.Fife, W. C. Porter, J. R.Fisher, P. S. Robinson, IanGoodluck, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Groom, R. J. Ruddock, P. M.Hall, Steele Shipton, R. F.Hawker, D. P. M. Sinclair, I. McC.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D. 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 Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Charlesworth, R. I. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Fry, K. L. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Theophanous, A. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Carlton, J. J. Jacobi, R.Coleman, W. P. Klugman, R. E.Andrew, J. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Cadman, A. G. Cunningham, B. T.Cameron, Ewen Child, J. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Honourable members will be aware that in December last year Parliament passed the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1983. That Act allowed the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to consider any request from the New South Wales Special Commission of Inquiry, constituted by Mr Justice Cross, for information relating to the commission or intended commission of a serious criminal offence which had been obtained by the lawful interception of telecommunications. Mr Justice Cross was appointed to conduct three separate inquiries under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983. Two of those inquiries have been completed. The third inquiry, relating to the circumstances surrounding the early release of certain prisoners, was in progress when Mr Justice Cross resigned his commission because of ill health. On 27 March the New South Wales Governor appointed Mr Justice Slattery to conduct that uncompleted inquiry. Pursuant to the terms of the 1983 amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, the Attorney-General has communicated to Mr Justice Cross certain information obtained by the Australian Federal Police by lawful interception of telecommunications. The Telecommunications ( Interception) Amendment Bill 1984 is necessary to permit that information to be furnished to Mr Justice Slattery for the purposes of his special commission of inquiry. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I understand it is the wish of the House to continue with the debate. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will allow that course to continue. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.03) —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill is a very important Bill even though it is a very brief one and even though the purpose of the Bill is, in essence, to substitute for Mr Justice Cross, Mr Justice Slattery for the purposes of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1983. Because this is an important Bill I wish to take a little more time in speaking to it than has the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). The original Bill, original in the sense of the one that this substitutes for, was the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1983 which became Act No. 116 of 1983. The purpose of that Bill was to allow information to be forwarded to the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry. The information that could be forwarded to the Cross inquiry was information, for present purposes, which had been intercepted pursuant to the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act which under certain circumstances allows interception of telephone calls. We have recently heard a lot in this House about the interception of telephone calls. We should understand how the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1983 works because we are really substituting Mr Justice Slattery for Mr Justice Cross. The Act first of all defines what an inquiry is and refers to the inquiry which has been conducted under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 of New South Wales. I will come back to that at a later time. The Act then sets out what a relevant offence is for the purposes of communication being made and defines that as an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a law of the State or a law of the Territory that is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a maximum period of not less than three years; that is, if it is three years or more, it is a relevant offence. The Act then provides that the person conducting what has been properly called the Cross inquiry may, by notice in writing to the Commonwealth Attorney-General , request the Attorney-General to ascertain whether there was information lawfully obtained by intercepting communications passing over our telecommunications system that is relevant for the purposes of the inquiry and appears to relate to the commission or intended commission of a relevant offence ; that is to say, an offence punishable by a maximum period of imprisonment of three years or more. On receipt of such a request the Attorney-General may then and will no doubt examine the request and if satisfied make a request in writing to the Commissioner of Police to ascertain whether there is material available and if any such material is in the possession of the Australian Federal Police he may communicate that. The Commissioner is then to communicate that to the Attorney- General. Therefore, the Attorney-General requests the Federal Police to advise whether there is relevant information and he is then advised by the police whether this information exists. The Attorney-General then has the task of being satisfied that the information should be passed on to the New South Wales inquiry. If he is satisfied that it should be passed on to that inquiry he may pass it on and that information may be used for the purposes of that inquiry. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1983 specified Mr Justice Cross as the person who was conducting an inquiry under the New South Wales Act. Of course why we have this Bill before us is that Mr Justice Cross, for reasons of ill health, has retired. We now have the appointment of Mr Justice Slattery in his place. In passing I mention that I have known Mr Justice Slattery for many years and have a high regard for him and his capabilities. I think we need to look at what it is that His Honour Mr Justice Slattery has to do under the New South Wales Act. Under the New South Wales Act he has to conduct an inquiry into circumstances surrounding the early release of certain prisoners. This would seem a very necessary thing to do because we all know of the early prisoner release scandal in New South Wales. It has been said of the New South Wales prisons that they were the only walk in, walk out prisons in the country. Because of the very great criticisms made of the early release scheme- calls which almost invariably have come from the New South Wales Opposition and not from anyone on the Government side-we now have the Cross inquiry which has been taken over by Mr Justice Slattery. All of us here wish Mr Justice Slattery well in the conduct of that inquiry since there is, from all we have heard, a great deal to inquire into. New South Wales probably has the dubious reputation of being known as the most corrupt State in the country. Certainly there are no likely contenders for that title. One of the problems that I think we need to look at is how the inquiry in New South Wales is conducted. I say this because Mr Justice Slattery, or anybody else who is appointed as a special commissioner under the New South Wales Act, is bound by that Act. There is one particularly troubling provision of that Act. It is one that I have never understood the reason for if the New South Wales Government was interested in fair play. It is provided by section 36(1) of the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act that: A Special Commission shall not be vitiated by reason of any informality or want of form or be liable to be challenged, appealed against, quashed or called in question by any court. By any court? Does that mean that the commissioner, whoever he is and however eminent he may be, is beyond judicial control? Is that not a perfectly astonishing provision to appear in an Act which clothes the commissioner with very wide powers to interrogate, to require documents and to require answers? Section 36(2) states: No proceedings, whether for an order in the nature of prohibition, certiorari or mandamus or for a declaration or injunction or for any other relief, shall lie in respect of any Special Commission. Effectively what that means is that the commission of inquiry established under the Act is beyond the control of the courts. So that the non-lawyers in the House know what I am talking about when I talk about prohibition, certiorari, or mandamus, let me briefly explain. Prohibition is an order that a superior court may give to any inferior court or to any tribunal exercising powers of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature to prohibit that tribunal from exceeding its powers. Certiorari is an order pursuant to which a superior court can quash, that is, invalidate, proceedings, before an inferior court or before a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers. Mandamus is an order which can be issued by a superior court to compel an inferior court or a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers to perform its functions according to law. A declaration is a form of relief which is available to citizens of this country so that they can go to a court and get it to declare that what has been done by such a body as a commission of inquiry is beyond power. I suppose everybody knows what an injunction is. It is an order which is issued by a superior court preventing, amongst other things, the misuse of power by an inferior court or a tribunal of the kind we have here. Tribunals of inquiry are ordinarily established by terms of reference. Those terms of reference set out what they may or may not do. Under the law of this land, unless altered by statute as it has been in New South Wales, if a tribunal exceeds its powers a person who is affected by any decision of that tribunal can go to the court and say: 'This tribunal is exceeding its powers. It is seeking to force me to do things which it is not entitled to do. It is seeking to call for papers from me which it is not entitled to call for, and I want you to stop it'. If the court is convinced that that is so, the court will order the tribunal to stop doing what it does not have power to do. However, that provision is not to apply. Nor is there to be any kind of right of appeal so that one cannot control what is happening while it is happening and one cannot appeal against any finding which may be made against one. We all know that an inquiry was made into some statements made by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). I am not going to traverse what took place in that inquiry but I will repeat now what I said then and that is, that judges go wrong every day of the week. It is the nature of the system. That is why we have appeal courts. Appeal courts are there to try to put things right . They do not always succeed in putting things right as anybody who has experience in the law or in the world knows. Courts are always going to be fallible. But with a system of appeal courts at least we have an opportunity of review. Under the New South Wales provisions in the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 there is no capability of reviewing a decision made by the Special Commissioner. There is no capability of controlling what that Special Commissioner is doing. That, it seems to me, is a grave departure from the kinds of laws which we should have in this country. It must be a basic rule that those who are conducting inquiries of a semi-judicial kind or even inquiries of a judicial kind-here we are really concerned with inquiries of a semi-judicial kind-should be subject to control of the courts. The person who is going to conduct the third limb of the inquiries under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act, Mr Justice Slattery, is, as I say, a person for whom I have the highest regard and whom I have known for many years. However , whether it is Mr Justice Slattery or any other judge, or a Queen's Counsel appointed under the New South Wales Act-I see a Queen's Counsel can be appointed under the Act-they can all go wrong. They can all make mistakes; they can all say things which prove, in the final analysis, to be incorrect. We all know that inquiries of this kind attract the widest publicity. When things are said which, in the final analysis, prove to be incorrect, there is no recalling them. What goes out from such an inquiry almost invariably attracts far more attention than does any refutation no matter how well based, no matter how reasonable. Whilst the Opposition supports the Bill, we think it necessary to draw to the attention of the House and the Government, which has said on many occasions that it has a commitment to civil rights-although I must say some of its actions are far away from giving real life to any such commitment-that we hope that in the legislation which will come before this Parliament, we will not see anything which prohibits bodies of the kind that have been established in New South Wales from control by the courts. That being said, the Opposition supports the Bill but adds the warning that the New South Wales legislation is not the sort of legislation we want to see here. It is not the sort of legislation that is calculated to make sure that people called before it get a fair hearing in the sense that they have a right at the end of the day to have matters reviewed. God knows, maybe some of us will be called before an inquiry one of these days. If our reputations were going to be affected, we most certainly would want an opportunity to correct anything that may be said about us, and to argue that the corrections should be made and entered on the record and to do that before a court, or to control the proceedings of a body which might be exceeding its terms of reference and exceeding them in a way that harms us. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.20) —The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1984, which has been introduced quickly, which had its passage through the Senate recently and which is being facilitated at this time, is an important piece of legislation which my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney ( Mr Spender) has indicated has the support of the Opposition. But I would not want it to be thought that the support of the Opposition for the introduction and the immediate passage of this legislation was necessarily support for the New South Wales Special Commissions of Inquiry Act and the form in which that Commission is now functioning. Notwithstanding those reservations, I would not want it to be thought that these comments could be construed in any way as a criticism of the appointment of Mr Justice Slattery as the new Commissioner in New South Wales to undertake inquiries under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act. I know of Mr Justice Slattery by repute, and I regard him to be a judge of very considerable reputation. But I think it is important that honourable members be aware of the limitations of the legislation under which he is required to work. The honourable member for North Sydney has placed some weight today on particular clauses and drawn, I think quite properly, to public notice the very considerable concern that should exist about the fact that inquiries that we are facilitating are a special form of commission and not a royal commission with the normal protections that the public might expect would be available had a royal commissioner been appointed in New South Wales to carry out investigations into the early release scheme and into other matters that have recently been considered by that body. This is not the first time that in New South Wales legislation of an unusual character has been introduced for which people wonder why the usual formula for conducting investigations has not been availed of by the Government. There was, first, the Evidence Amendment Act in New South Wales which was of considerable concern to those who were interested in civil liberties, those who were interested in facilitating proper inquiry and ensuring that proper evidence in matters could be put before the courts. Yet legislation was brought into the Parliament to prevent information in the hands of government being made available to the courts in New South Wales. New South Wales was the only place, as I understand it, where legislation of that character was introduced. Then, of course, there were certain allegations made in respect of which, because of their force, there was a view that there ought to be an inquiry to establish truth and to establish whether allegations that had been made were correct. The normal way in which those matters would have been dealt with would have been by way of royal commission. Yet what we saw in 1983 was the introduction of legislation to establish a special commission of inquiry which, in terms of the legislation, qualified the rights which would normally be available to those who were likely to be called before a royal commission, rights that they would have enjoyed, and which excluded the possible intervention of the courts if the special commission, in this instance, were carried out in circumstances in which a court may have formed the view that it was wrong in principle. There are certain principles that ought to operate in relation to the conduct of commissions of inquiry. We already know in relation to royal commissions that they can have their findings canvassed if there is a belief that the commission has made an error. Courts can have their findings reviewed by higher courts. There is no reflection upon a judge or others who may be involved in inquiries if their judgments are canvassed. In relation to the Mount Erebus inquiry in New Zealand, there was such an appeal and the decisions of the royal commission in that instance were canvassed by the Privy Council, as I understand it. Of course, section 36 of the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act in New South Wales contains provisions designed to exclude the court from carrying out a review of the form that it might normally be able to carry out. It excludes appeal. It excludes the use of the writs of prohibition. We know that in relation to the conduct of the Special Commission in New South Wales in two instances recently there has been some comment about the way in which the inquiries have been conducted. It is no reflection upon the Commission itself that complaints have been made. The reflection is upon the legislation that took away the normal procedures that would have otherwise operated in relation to the conduct of a royal commission and took away the possibility of an approach to the court when there was a view that the procedures might not have been carried out properly. We know in relation to the first report of the Special Commission in New South Wales that there was an editing of the report of the Special Commissioner by the Government, a very unusual procedure. We know that in relation to the second matter that was looked at in New South Wales by the Special Commissioner there was very considerable complaint about some aspects of the inquiry, including the inability of one of the parties who were involved to have information that would normally be available as to the nature of the findings that might be made so that other evidence could be put before the Commission before it reached a final view. Such matters could have been the subject of an appeal. The Opposition is co-operating in the passage of the legislation that we are dealing with today, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1984, to ensure that the Special Commission is able to conduct its inquiry unhampered by any action on the part of this Government. The Opposition is facilitating the passage of that leislation. So it is important that we be aware of the limitations in the special commissions of inquiry legislation in New South Wales . If the view is to be formed that the inquiries that have been carried out to this point in time can go unquestioned because of the nature of the legislation that was introduced by the Government of New South Wales, to limit, in my view, the way in which the Commission's findings might be properly examined by the courts and in ways in which they would if the body were a royal commission, those matters ought to be the subject of comment in this Parliament. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill is designed to ensure that the Special Commissioner in New South Wales has access to certain tapes of conversations recorded by an authorisation that was given under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. Of course these tapes, unlike other tapes that we have been hearing about, are authorised. They are tapes that were taken legally. But there are limitations upon the extent to which others might be apprised of the contents of them. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the Special Commission in New South Wales, headed by the new Commissioner, Mr Justice Slattery, which has been established to examine certain circumstances surrounding the early release of prisoners in New South Wales, will be able to have that information available to it in the circumstances in which it is carrying out the inquiry. Undoubtedly, this evidence is considered by the inquiry to be important to it. No doubt there is no possible allegation in this instance that the tape recordings lack any authenticity. Presumably they have been taken under the aegis of this legislation by agencies of the Commonwealth and have not been taped illegally by police, as has been suggested was the case in relation to certain other tapes about which we hear so much. Of course the matters that are being inquired into are of great moment and of great importance. I think it is important that the task that Mr Justice Slattery has been given be undertaken. I certainly hope that, in this instance, if Mr Justice Slattery finds that the special factors that I have mentioned involved in the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act in New South Wales in any way hamper him in the conduct of this inquiry, he will make known to the Government of New South Wales and more widely deficiencies in this legislation so that the inquiry can be properly facilitated. In New South Wales there is concern amongst lawyers about the fact that special commissions of inquiry legislation was introduced and that the normal procedures by way of royal commissions have been put aside. I speak as one who has heard those views; who has for a time practised law in New South Wales; and who is concerned when the system of justice is brought into disrepute and when legislation can be characterised in the way in which this legislation has been characterised and is not giving rise to a fair and proper inquiry for those who have had to appear before a special commission of inquiry. I think that these matters ought to be noted by the Government and by the public at large. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.33) —in reply-I welcome the fact that the legislation is not being opposed, although having listened to the speeches by members of the Opposition I would have thought that they did not see very much merit in it. Obviously they used that mechanism to give forth some personal views about New South Wales. The issue clearly is that information which has already been furnished to Mr Justice Cross can be made available to Mr Justice Slattery. I do not know why we had to have such a wide-ranging debate on issues which have nothing to do with the Telcommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1984 which is before the House. Everybody agreed that that Bill should be introduced. But now another matter has been opened up. Obviously in the minds of some honourable members opposite there is something wrong with the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act of New South Wales. I do not see any merit in that accusation. The Act was set up to handle accusations which were made either in public or in private. The fact that there are casualties, whether political or otherwise, is, in fact, a tribute to the method of justice, of analysing evidence which is given subject to cross-examination rather than accusations being made with no opportunity to investigate the merit of them. Let me make it very clear. The judicial process still runs its course under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act. People are entitled to have legal representation and to test the evidence against them. When the evidence against them crumbles and falls it follows, does it not, that it is in accordance with justice that the people making the accusations have to suffer the damage and not the people at whom they aimed those accusations? When we see people such as Mr Coombs and Mr Waterhouse coming out unscathed, surely we cannot complain about it? Mr Spender —But you do not think that those commissions are infallible, do you? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I want to make the point for the benefit of the honourable member, who did not mention it, that the commission merely makes a finding as to whether there is cause for further action. In other words, it is a prima facie finding. Why would the honourable member object to that? Honourable members opposite talk about natural justice. They should examine the justice in this case. What happened to the reputations of two people who came out from that inquiry unscathed and were then vilified in this Parliament? What happened to the reputation of Mr Justice Cross? Honourable members opposite do not want to listen. What happened to the reputation of Mr Justice Cross, a very honourable judge, as was shown by the debates which subsequently transpired here in regard to a finding that he made on the evidence? Mr Ruddock —He was hamstrung by the Act. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He was not hamstrung by the Act. What happened to the woman magistrate who had to suffer because of an accusation made by a person who subsequently had his counsel get up and say that he wanted to withdraw the allegation? Mr Sinclair —Supported by the New South Wales Government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable member has been damaged for life because of the findings which have been made against him. He has been damaged because of what he had to admit in the witness box. It had nothing to do with the findings. He knows that that is the problem. I am very mindful of the fact that Mr Justice Cross has had to retire because of the strain put upon him. I think that a lot of that strain would relate to the debate which took place in this Parliament. I wonder what redress Mr Coombs and Mr Waterhouse have in libel and in other actions against accusations which have been made against them. What redress does Miss Schreiner have, from the point of view of being a magistrate who was vilified? What about the advertisements for the Liberal Party which were used in the recent election and which named a person who is at present facing trial? What do honourable members think about that from the point of view of justice? Mr Spender —Do you suggest that that has anything to do with what we are talking about today? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It does, because I am answering the honourable member for North Sydney. It is because I am answering him that he is trying to run away from it. I am referring specifically to the fact that the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act in New South Wales is functioning. I draw his mind to the fact that there have been other commissions of inquiry. Mr Sinclair —That is a very bad piece of law. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a law that enables people to test the validity of accusers. It is a law that allows people to lay an information when perhaps they feel they cannot give it to the police. The issue is very clear. The point is this: There was the Moffitt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales. That would interest honourable members opposite in political terms, would it not? It would interest them substantially, because of the corruption that was obvious at that time, when there was no Labor Government in New South Wales. Mr Sinclair —What is wrong with a royal commission? Why did Wran run away from the royal commission system? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the point. Honourable members opposite should not try to stop it by continually interjecting. Let me talk to them without the interjections. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! Interjections are out of order. The Minister is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am answering interjections now, but the accusations were made by the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr Spender —I was speaking about the Act which this Bill supports and so it is directly related. You know that, Lionel. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that, and I know that the honourable member spoke about the corruption in New South Wales over a long period. I also know that he said that one could walk in and out of gaol-these are his own words-at any time. That is why we had the Nagle Royal Commission into New South Wales Prisons, which, of course, related to the period when the Liberal Government was in office. Why do honourable members opposite not get their facts right? I will accept the view that there can always be corruption but the question here is how to pin it down. The problem about corruption, if one wants to look at it objectively, is that unfortunately it can also get into the police forces. That is the problem. The problem then for the average citizen is that he has to ask: 'How can I legitimately complain if I have no source to go to other than that'? That is the value of the legal profession. The legal approach is to say: 'Let us test the accusation'. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) is only smarting over the fact that he made a stupid political accusation against people -- Mr Sinclair —I am not smarting at all. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —His career is destroyed. In the terms of the judical process under this Act the right honourable member had every chance to go ahead with those accusations yet he withdrew them. But he came into the Parliament afterwards and repeated them. I make the point that honourable members opposite should not make the accusation in this Parliament that there are problems in New South Wales only because of recent events. We could take them back in time to a period which would cover the whole spectrum when the Liberal Party was in power. Substantial accusations were made at that time. The Moffitt Royal Commission had a lot to do with them. People who had previously been in high office were also affected. So it is ridiculous to suggest now that all of a sudden we must look at this Act and at what is wrong with it. The point that honourable members opposite ought to value about the Act-- Mr Sinclair —There was Farquhar, Kevin Humphreys-- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, the right honourable member would name them all again even though one of them is facing trial now. He was found wanting. That is the reason his career here is finished. There is no need for him to talk about credibility, because of what happened. I am only making the point, in the plea-- Mr Sinclair —You never had a career. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Maybe so, but that does not matter. I will go out clean. There are few doubts about that. The point at the moment is this: The New South Wales Act, which it has been suggested is wrong because it would not allow anybody justice, has been proved to be of value in clearing people charged with crime. I think we will find that other people are guilty of misconduct from the point of view of making accusations for which there is no validity, affecting, as I say, the question of justice. Mr Sinclair —Absolute rubbish! You know there was validity. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It hurts the right honourable member a lot. He cannot stop because of the accusations. For example, I am talking about the woman magistrate called Schreiner. Why is the right honourable member trying to interject against that? I am talking about Coombs and Waterhouse. That must hurt the right honourable member a lot. Mr Sinclair —You know the allegations are true, don't you? You read my evidence to the Special Commission. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know that at all. There was no truth. That is why the right honourable member withdrew it. I want to make this point about this Act: Other people will want to make accusations and that Act gives them the chance to do so. Mr Sinclair —No, it does not. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, it does. It gives them an opportunity to test the position . When the Commissioner makes a finding, it will not be a finding of guilty or not guilty; it will be a finding on whether there is a prima facie case to answer. That is the point. Then at least we will get some parallel with justice at present. Mr Shipton —What about natural justice? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is natural justice in that. The point I am making is that every person has the right to be legally represented. That has all the elements of justice. If it is so wrong, why are honourable members opposite not opposing this Bill now? This Bill will allow evidence to be put before the Commission. Honourable members opposite are hoist by their own petard because they approved of the Bill in the first instance. The Bill will allow evidence that has already been given to Mr Justice Cross to be made available to Mr Justice Slattery, and honourable members opposite approve of that. If that is so, why have honourable members opposite raised, in a long political diatribe, what they think is wrong with New South Wales, saying that one can walk in and out of gaols and that there is corruption? I can explain to them the corruption that applied under previous Liberal administrations. All they do is interject when that is said. If that Act is not what they want, why would they allow this evidence to be made available? They should oppose the Bill. That is the logical thing to do. They should not try to bluff their way through by abuse and ridiculous accusations. Mr Sinclair —What do you think you are doing? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Firstly, I have to answer the accusations that honourable members opposite have made about what is wrong with the Act. They said that the Leader of the National Party never got a fair deal under the Act. They said also that there were problems with the administration of gaols in New South Wales, as though that had occurred only recently, and they omitted to mention the Nagle Commission. They forgot to mention that the accusations which had been made about the woman magistrate Schreiner had to be withdrawn. None of those things were given credit. The point is that the magistrate was accused of something-- Mr Ruddock —The substance of the allegations could be understood-- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Why is it-- Mr Ruddock —So that the public would not be aware of why these allegations were being made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dundas will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The fanaticism of interjection! A woman magistrate in New South Wales was impugned and, as a result of this inquiry, the person who made that accusation arranged for the Queen's Counsel representing him to stand up and withdraw. That is the position. Mr Sinclair —He was denied the opportunity to be represented, and you know that. He was given a watching brief. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable member is fearful that what happened to him will be found out. I challenge honourable members opposite: If this Act is so bad, so unfair, and so contrary to natural justice, why in the name of logic or sense do they support this piece of legislation? I think we have heard enough of these accusations from the Opposition. By all means let them suggest that they do not want any more inquiries by this Commission as far as members of the Opposition are concerned. Honourable members opposite are so interested in natural justice that they have agreed to a Senate committee taking unto itself such powers that no justice will be given to the people accused before it! On the same principle of looking at tapes, those opposite are going to empower some senators to do whatever they want to do. What rights will the people called before that Senate committee have? What chance of justice have they got? A double standard is being adopted here today in that those opposite are saying: ' We support the Bill but we oppose the forum to which the evidence is going'. How ridiculous can they get? It is also ridiculous for them to suggest that there has not been any justice before that Commission when in fact there has. It is also ridiculous for those opposite to set up a Senate committee before which people will be dragged on very much the same issue without any right to have legal counsel or without any right of cross-examination. Those opposite do not deserve any credibility because of the speeches they made. The only sensible part of their speeches today was when they said that they supported the Bill. We ought to leave it at that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(5.48) —Tonight the House is resuming the second reading debate on the Health Insurance Amendment Bill by which the Government seeks to introduce amendments to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act in the hope of resolving the present doctors' dispute. The Opposition believes that these amendments do not go far enough and will not resolve the dispute. Accordingly, I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government should take immediate steps to resolve the dispute between the Minister for Health and the doctors by accepting the Health Legislation Amendment Bill of which the honourable member for Mackellar gave notice on 27 March 1984'. Part V of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia defines the powers of the Parliament. Section 51 proclaims: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: . . . The provision of . . . medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), . . . The important qualification, that prohibiting civil conscription, was included in the amemdments to the Constitution proposed in 1946 by the then Labor Government at the suggestion of the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr R.G. Menzies. The amendments were approved by the people in a referendum. It is most unfortunate that attempts by the present Labor Government of Australia to circumvent that binding covenant of our Constitution are threatening the peace, order and good government of this Commonwealth. As a direct result of the actions of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Government, doctors are on strike for the first time in Australia's history. We face the extraordinary situation where doctors have been so provoked by threats to their private independent professional practice that they have decided to withdraw their services from public hospitals except in cases of emergency. Given the sense of dedication and remoteness from political action of the vast majority of the profession, why have its members decided to act in this fashion? It is worth examining the history of the present dispute. In September last year the Government introduced legislation into the Federal Parliament to establish a new system of health insurance called Medicare. The scheme was similar to one first proposed in the late 1960s and introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government during its term of office between 1972 and 1975. It was then called Medibank. Medibank was progressively dismantled by the Fraser Government during its term of office, the main changes occurring between 1976 and 1981. The Labor Party has claimed a mandate to reintroduce a similar scheme following its election victory in March 1983. The scheme involves nationalisation of over 50 per cent of the private health insurance industry. It offers free surgery consultations and free hospital beds in public hospitals, although these offers have been made without the prior agreement of the medical profession whose co- operation is essential to make them a reality. The offer of free surgery consultations depends on doctors applying the same procedures as have previously been available, but not compulsory, for pensioners and the disadvantaged-that is, the doctor direct billing the Government for 85 per cent of the Government approved schedule fee and accepting that amount in full settlement of the account without billing the patient. While many doctors have been prepared to do this for low income groups, they have not in general been prepared, since the introduction of Medicare, to do it for others. It means accepting a reduction in gross income of at least 15 per cent. Doctors, understandably, see no merit in discounting their gross income to this extent, with consequent higher percentage reductions in net income to patients who could afford medical insurance. In order to put pressure on doctors to direct bill, the Government made all private medical insurance, as opposed to hospital insurance, illegal, reserving a public monopoly for Medicare, thus making it impossible for patients to insure for the gap between fee and claim. The Government also distributed propaganda to the public suggesting that they ask for free treatment and tried to persuade State governments to permit advertising by doctors who agreed to direct bill. We cannot yet judge the success of these efforts to move private medical practitioners over to the Government payroll, but we know that many doctors who had previously direct billed for pensioners and the disadvantaged have reverted to billing the patient and accepting the discounted fee collected by the patient from Medicare. By and large, members of the profession accepted these measures as legitimate legislative aims for a socialist government but reserved their right to choose their own method of billing. If the Medicare measures had been left there, the Government would not have got itself into its present predicament. But the Government went further. Part of the Medicare package of legislation was the now notorious section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, which provides that Medicare benefits are not payable to a patient treated as the private patient of a visiting medical officer in a public hospital unless the doctor concerned has signed a contract of service in a form approved by the Federal Minister for Health. As some 80 per cent of the nation's hospital beds are in public hospitals, and an even higher proportion of the surgical beds, a high proportion of private specialist practice in Australia is performed in public hospitals. Up until now, the professional relationship between the doctor and the patient has been for the most part preserved, despite the use of public facilities. The public hospitals have negotiated contracts for the use of these facilities with the doctors in each case, and it is these contracts that the Federal Minister now seeks to control. Any such attempt by the Minister to dictate the conditions of service of doctors in State public hospitals for the purposes of the Medicare scheme runs the risk of contravening the civil conscription prohibition of the Constitution. The denial of the Medicare benefit to the patient, thus putting pressure on the doctor, can be seen as a device to try to circumvent the Constitution. The High Court of Australia may well have to decide whether this device succeeds. However, section 17 is even more provocative than that. It gives the Federal Minister powers to determine the acceptability of a contract without any provision for arbitration or appeal. The concerns of the profession were made known quite clearly to the Minister last September, but he and the Government refused to accept an amendment put forward by the Opposition. From that moment, the die for the current dispute was cast. At the time of its introduction and since, the Minister has claimed that the purpose of section 17 was to curb the unnecessarily high earnings of diagnostic specialists using public facilities to treat private patients. It may be that some such specialists are earning what might be regarded as excessive sums from their contracts. The Opposition does not dispute that. If so, the hospitals concerned, acting under State legislation, have it within their power to seek to have the contracts renegotiated. As the Bill was being debated in September last year, I specifically asked the Minister whether the provisions of section 17 applied only to certain diagnostic specialists. He replied: They apply to all medical officers using public hospital facilities for private practice. The Minister repeated this assertion in Question Time last Tuesday. So section 17 applies to all medical officers using public hospital facilities. For the moment, the Minister has applied its provisions to certain diagnostic specialists. Other specialists, such as the surgeons, became suspicious of the Minister's intentions, particularly when he began to change his public explanations of the reasons for section 17. When it was pointed out to him that if diagnosticians were earning too much from the use of public facilities then adjustments could be made by hospitals to charges for facilities, he produced the new argument that he was trying to protect patients from excessive charges, defined by him as charges in excess of the Government schedule fee. Unfortunately for his credibility, it has emerged that diagnostic specialists, almost to a man and to a woman, have not been charging more than the schedule fee. We have had the most extraordinary situation in the States where, when the doctors resisted the contracts under section 17, this Minister asked State Labor colleagues to introduce price control legislation. I do not know whether honourable members heard the Minister for Health in South Australia, Dr Cornwall, being interviewed on radio one morning last week. Dr Cornwall had the unhappy duty of bringing in price control to force diagnostic specialists in South Australia to charge the schedule fee or less. He said that they all were already charging the schedule fee or less, and that he was perfectly happy with the contracts that they had signed, and that this Federal Minister was coming in and insisting that they sign another piece of paper, and that therefore he, Dr Cornwall, had to take stern action through State regulations to introduce price control to make these diagnostic specialists do something that they were quite happily doing already. The same thing happened in Victoria. State Health Minister Roper had had discussions with the Australian Medical Assocation in Melbourne. It was quite happy about diagnosticians charging the schedule fee and, in fact, all were charging the schedule fee or less. But the Federal Minister came in and said that the doctors had to sign a piece of paper. So Mr Roper brought in price control regulations to force the diagnostic specialists in Victoria to charge the fees that they were already charging under their existing contracts. In New South Wales the same thing would have happened, the same farce would have occurred, with Mr Mulock had there not been a State election on; but that farce has been reintroduced, immediately after the election, and Mr Mulock in New South Wales has brought in the same kind of unnecessary price control regulations. In New South Wales, too, the diagnostic specialists have been charging the schedule fee or less and, in the case of the radiologists certainly , paying about 60 per cent of their fees as facility charges to the public hospitals. Why, then, introduce draconian measures at the Federal level and back them up with State price control measures to force doctors to do something that they are already doing voluntarily? I think that the answer can be found in an address given by the Federal Minister to the Doctors' Reform Society in August last year . I should interpose that the word 'reform' in the title of this particular society has about the same level of meaning as the word 'democratic' in the title of the German Democratic Republic. This small society, representing about one per cent of doctors, is always ready to support this Minister in his more reprehensible actions. At this meeting with this Society, referring to the contracts of visiting medical officers, he said: It was agreed at the July Health Ministers' conference- that was July 1983- 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. Thus it is clear that the Minister had already decided, even before introducing the legislation in September, to include other specialties in due course. The surgeons were well justified in their concern. They realised that what was at stake was Federal Government control of the profession on a scale not previously contemplated. We can understand the Minister's increasingly truculent stance. His core objective is different from the unbelievable one he has used to justify the legislation. But he has also caught himself on a hook. He has contracted to provide to the Australian public services for which he has made no prior arrangements with those being asked to deliver those services. He has prevented himself, under section 17, from paying benefits to patients unless the doctors providing the services have signed a piece of paper. Yet the conditions he has attached to that signature make it impossible for any self-respecting doctor to sign it. Who would be so crazy as to sign a contract that could be altered unilaterally by the other party without legal process, arbitration or appeal? At one stage the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) intervened and asked the Australian Medical Association to accept an inquiry into the section 17 issue but the Prime Minister, like the Minister, still insisted that the contracts be signed before the results of the inquiry were available. Again, who could possibly accept that ? If the Minister is successful in his aims, Medicare will result in all doctors in their surgeries being totally dependent on the Government for their gross income, and all visiting medical officers in the public hospitals will have their contracts directly controlled by the Federal Minister. No wonder the profession is angry and alarmed. So too should patients be angry and alarmed. What is at stake is the future of private medical practice in this country. I have no doubt about the Minister's long term intentions. He wants to move to a British system, but realises that the public would not accept such a proposition if it were advanced openly. He seeks to move by stealth. Indeed, he disclosed his approach and the reasons for it in a speech to the Australian Hospitals Association in Adelaide in 1982 when he was still in opposition. At that meeting he said: The Party- meaning the Australian Labor Party- has put aside any primary emphasis on salaried or capitation systems in pragmatic recognition of the prevailing culture and attitudes in this society and in its effort to secure widespread community support for its program. Private fee-for-service medicine is deeply entrenched in Australian society, strongly defended by the medical profession, and favourably evaluated by the population at large. That is a fact of life and whatever changes we desire in that system will have to take place gradually and incrementally. Mr Donald Cameron —Who said that? Mr CARLTON —The present Minister for Health said that to a meeting of the AHA in Adelaide in 1982 when he was the Opposition spokesman on health. In other words, he was saying: 'We do not think we can get away with the abolition of fee-for- service private practice in one hit, so we will do it salami fashion, slice by slice'. I believe that the quality of patient care depends to an enormous extent on the individual motivations, be they professional satisfaction, monetary reward or a mixture of both, of independent private health practitioners, each striving to keep up to date with the state of knowledge and each trying to meet community needs. They are flexible and sensitive intermediaries between the world of knowledge and the world of practice, and they pass the essential signals in both directions. I have immensely more faith in the capacity of hundreds of thousands of independent brains to make the myriad complicated adjustments necessary for this task than I have in the capacity of just a few chosen brains, however brilliant, to decide how all will adjust. In other words, I believe in having hundreds of thousands of independent private medical practitioners making these decisions about patient needs rather than a group of administrators. I fear that the Minister and his advisers are busily constructing a dinosaur. It will be a tragedy for this country if we let them do it. We simply must not let them do it . Let us examine the amendments that are before the House tonight. These amendments, very clearly, do not get to the heart of the argument. First of all, there is the so-called Haines amendment. This really ought to be called the Baume amendment because it is the amendment that was moved in the Senate last September by my colleague Senator Peter Baume. It was supported then by Senator Haines and one other Australian Democrat, but three Democrats voted with the Government and the amendment was defeated because at that stage, of course, the Government rejected it. All it provides is for parliamentary scrutiny of the guidelines issued under section 17. There is no guarantee in such a procedure against civil conscription, no guarantee that the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution prohibiting civil conscription will be adhered to. The Minister claimed in his second reading speech that the forces of the market -place would constrain his use of these guidelines. But doctors do not know how a Senate will vote on guidelines. We had the example of the Democrats last September pledging in a joint statement with Senator Harradine and me to oppose certain aspects of Medicare. When it came to a vote in the Senate they switched and voted with the Government and let the measure through. Also, doctors do not know the composition of future Senates. There is no safeguard in a parliamentary scrutiny of the Minister's guidelines under this section. Also-this is more important at the moment-the doctors have no reason whatsoever to trust this Minister or this Government. Let us consider this Minister's treatment of this highly skilled professional group. Most of them have no interest in politics. Only a few are engaged in political activities all the time. Most of them wish to get on with their private professional work of treating their patients. These people train for long periods and for the most part, with very few exceptions, provide a very satisfactory service to the people of Australia. An opinion poll taken last year showed that they had the support of 60 per cent of the Australian population, placing them in very high regard above any other single profession. These are the people of whom the Prime Minister of this country said: 'They are the builders labourers of the professions'. The Prime Minister compared them with builders labourers. The Minister said of them and of this dispute: In principle, this dispute is really no different to the Hawke Government's stand in the BLF pay claim. I cannot think of anything more wounding that a Prime Minister or a Minister for Health could say in the middle of a serious dispute with an honoured profession, a profession facing up to its first strike action in the history of this country , than to compare it with the Builders Labourers Federation which has a reputation in this country as being the worst union in terms of industrial disputes, lawlessness and gangsterism. It is absolutely notorious. Yet all the members of the profession have been branded by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health, in whom they should have confidence, as being like the builders labourers. How on earth could that profession have any confidence in this Minister and his guidelines? The second amendment moved by the Government at this stage allows the Minister to exempt any doctor from the guidelines if State government rules achieve what the Federal Minister wants. Again, there is no safeguard in that. The Minister, in his second reading speech yesterday, gave his game away yet again. He simply does not understand the nature of the problem he is dealing with. He said: . . . we cannot and will not be deterred from the principle of section 17 . . . What is this sacred principle of section 17? Honourable members should remember that it gives power to control all doctors' contracts, not just diagnostic specialists' contracts. Is that the principle that is so sacred, the power over all contracts? I thought diagnostic fees were the problem. But it is power over all contracts. Is that the sacred principle? We now know that in July last year the Minister decided with the State Ministers that he would move on to other specialities in due course. How would this affect surgeons for example? The guidelines he quoted in his speech include: (a) All accounts to be raised by the hospital on behalf of the doctor. (b) All charges to be at or below schedule fee. What would the consequences of this be for a surgeon? A surgeon is threatened by section 17. What about the doctor-patient relationship? Who employs the doctor? Is it the patient or is it the Minister? The Minister thinks he is the employer. In support of his argument he foolishly quoted an editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald and unwittingly revealed his view of himself in relation to the doctors. I quote from the same editorial from which the Minister quoted: Dr Blewett's power under Section 17 is certainly no more and probably a great deal less than that of any other employer. I stress the word 'employer'. Does he not realise that that is a lunatic thing to say to the independent specialists? Does not he realise that he is flaunting before the doctors his disregard for section 51 of the Constitution? They regard the patient as their employer. The patients regard themselves as the employers of the doctors. Now that the Minister has, under Medicare, made illegal all forms of private medical insurance and pays 85 per cent of the schedule fee out of taxpayers' funds he has elevated himself to the role of employer of doctors. That is what section 17 is about. That is why these amendments are a waste of time. Guideline (b) restricts the doctor to the schedule fee or less. If this is applied to our surgeons a surgeon of exceptional skill, at the peak of his powers, will not be able to charge more for his services than a surgeon just out of training. That is what the Australian Labor Party wants, but it is not what Australians want. That is a recipe for mediocrity and the surgeons know it. We know it is part of the accord to bring all incomes from professional people under control. It is not incomes that the Government is controlling, it is prices. Costs are to be subtracted from those fees, whatever the profession. This Government, as part of the accord, wishes to bring into control the price of all those services of the professions and small businesses. In this case if the Government controls the surgeons' fees and contracts it is a recipe for mediocrity. If it happens patients will be the losers. The quality of health care will fall. What must be done to get out of this appalling mess? Quite simply we must get rid of the civil conscription provisions of section 17 that were put into the legislation last September. They were never necessary to achieve the Minister's stated objectives of reducing the costs of diagnostic services. Indeed, they are in no way essential to the running of Medicare. The costs of the diagnostic services are probably about 3.5 per cent of the nation's health bill. Presumably , if these costs are too high, we are talking about a proportion of 3.5 per cent of the nation's health bill. Medicare would go on with section 17 provisions removed. The Minister must accept the Opposition's private member's Bill, expunge those clauses, go back to the doctors and seek their co-operation in solving his diagnostic problem if that is his real concern. Whilst section 17 is inessential for Medicare, its continuance in its present form is the canker that will destroy Medicare and this Minister. While it is there he will not have the confidence of doctors. Without their co-operation he will have no Medicare. Therefore I say to this Minister: Withdraw these unnecessary and offensive provisions. Withdraw them or resign and let somebody else do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(6.15) —The Government is determined to succeed in providing for the Australian people an efficient health care system of the highest quality . This it is doing through Medicare. Certain doctors are determined to destroy Medicare. The Australian people are determined to have Medicare. They understand it and they want it. But certain doctors have deliberately devised tactics to confuse and mislead the public and the rest of their profession and to hinder the Government's operation of Medicare. They will not win. The Australian people will win. They understand very clearly what benefits there are for them under Medicare. Certain doctors, in their long battle to destroy Medicare, have now settled on industrial action. The Health Insurance Amendment Bill is a positive step by the Government to seek a resolution of the dispute before this current industrial action, which is causing inconvenience to patients, escalates to a point where it could endanger patients. This legislation provides the immediate safeguard the profession has sought. It amends section 17 of the Medicare legislation, that section which the doctors claimed gave the Minister unfettered power to regulate them. It was a long battle before this stage was reached. In fact, this is the doctors' last stand. It is a pretty unreasonable stand and a lot of people agree on that. Some of my colleagues will quote from editorials from some of the most conservative newspapers in this country which point out how unreasonable the stand of the doctors is. The doctors have been able to put their very considerable resources into this battle. I would like to quote from a letter from the Australian Association of Surgeons written to its members on 8 March. Many members responded to our earlier requests for a donation of $250 per quarter over 12 months and the time has now fallen due for the next quarterly instalment. That money is to be used in a propaganda campaign. It might be necessary to point out to some honourable members opposite that a single person, aged 18 years or more on the dole, gets $295 a month. Yet the Australian Association of Surgeons can ask its members for $250 a quarter just for a propaganda campaign. The doctors have certainly had all the money that they have needed for their campaign. But, after all, they are not interested in money. Money is not the object of the exercise. It does not mean much to them at all, or so they say. In this long struggle what have the doctors' tactics been? In their initial attempt to undermine Medicare they refused to bulk bill. These doctors know that if the cost to the taxpayer is to be kept to a minimum the co-operation of the doctors to bulk bill is important. If honourable members opposite, who seem to be supporting that tiny group of doctors conducting this campaign, do not believe that doctors would stoop to misleading in their tactics, let me read to them from a journal called Medical Practice, Australia's medical news magazine incorporating the AMA Gazette. I must point out that the Australian Medical Association says it does not endorse everything in this journal. But an article in this journal on practice management entitled 'Bulk Billing: How to Present Your Policy' gave doctors some tips on how to explain to the patients just why they would not bulk bill. The article states: If patients argue that the rebate fee is the 'right' fee they are likely to say : 'Your doctor is overcharging'. The doctor is advised to tell his staff to respond: 'No. This is the fee charged by private doctors. If you want the rebate ( discounted) fee you will have to go to a Government doctor, a Medicare doctor.' I ask honourable members to listen to this. Staff might say to the patient as the article states: . . . we are very happy to tell you that doctor has decided to retain his private practice and is not conforming with the Government's Medicare payment plan. This means he can continue to give you his best quality service. You are not coming to a government doctor. What a hide. Fancy disparaging the care that doctors always give their patients by saying that if one goes to a government doctor one will not get the best quality care. Honourable members should listen to this. The doctors have been advised in the article to put this in their policy: Our health care policy is to remain as private practitioners and therefore we do not conform with the Medicare payment plan. I guarantee that plenty of people have seen that on doctors' surgery walls. The article continues: 'I hope you are happy that I am endeavouring to retain my status as a private practitioner, Mrs Brown . . . You didn't really want me to become just a Government doctor did you Mrs Brown?' What is 'just a government doctor'? Every doctor in this country can now have his fees paid through Medicare and every person who needs medical care in Australia can get the best quality medical care. I happen to be one of those people who believes that every doctor in this country gives of his best to his patients. Certainly those doctors in private practice who bulk bill are still the best possible doctors and are still retaining their private practice. I am also one of the people who believes that not one of the doctors would have succumbed to the advice given to them in the magazine. The point is that Medicare has survived and will survive that particular tactic . Most doctors are bulk billing. So that tactic failed. I point out though that it is often put to me by certain top surgeons that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is arrogant. After having read out the sorts of terms in which doctors are advised to speak to their patients, I think they have a bit of a hide to talk about arrogance. After that tactic had failed, the next step was to pick out an area which attempted to put a ceiling on fees. This is an area in the Medicare legislation. That is a very expensive area that relates to diagnostic services, such as pathology, radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine. This is a very high cost area of Medicare with a significant technical content. These services are provided by the use of public equipment and public facilities. These very costly facilities are taxpayer funded, so it is only right that there should be a wider degree of public accountability. The basic aims of the Federal Government in introducing the contracts between the doctors in this particular area and the hospital is to limit the amounts of money these specialists can claim for private patients by preventing specialists from charging above the schedule fee for their services and by placing a ceiling of $62,500 on specialists' income above which the hospital takes a percentage which is paid into a hospital fund. Although these working conditions are unacceptable to the AMA they are in fact pretty reasonable if not too generous. At the moment when private specialists visit hospitals they examine a certain amount of cases and charge for each individual case. The doctor is required to pay the hospital 20 per cent of his schedule fee for the use of hospital facilities. For example, if the schedule fee is $50 the hospital receives $10. The doctor can charge the patient more than the schedule fee. However, the hospital is entitled to none of the money charged in excess of the schedule fee. The proposed hospital contracts will prevent doctors charging patients fees in excess of the schedule fee and thus try to keep down rising health costs. The second proposal of the contracts is to place a ceiling on the income of private and salaried specialists in any one hospital at $62,500. However, the income of private specialists is not limited to this amount. They can go over it . If they exceed this amount the specialists are required to pay 25 per cent of any further income into the hospital fund. If they earn over $87,000 they are required to pay 40 per cent. However, this condition is no great kick in the teeth for the money paid into hospital funds is used really to further the doctors' profession and their professional career. Furthermore, the limits of $ 62,500 and $87,000 restrict only how much a private specialist may earn in any one hospital. So it is possible for a private specialist to be earning this much in two or three hospitals. The Australian Association of Surgeons protested against the Government's moves. It really homed in on this one. It thought that this was something it could get the Government on. It encouraged its members to refuse to do non-urgent operations on Thursday, 1 March for 24 hours. The AMA was not the initiator of the decision but supported the surgeons' actions. It is very hard now to work out what the doctors want. It is not just the money . I can understand doctors wanting to make a fortune; I can understand a plumber wanting to make a fortune; I can understand a school teacher wanting to make a fortune; but what I cannot understand is why, in their efforts to make that fortune, they would want to sabotage a health insurance system that is benefiting every Australian. So what do the doctors want? I will tell honourable members what they want. They want only one thing and that is to destroy Medicare . Any attempts to understand what they really want come up against some pretty extraordinary attitudes amongst the profession. They really seem to think that we want to hurt the work they do. They really seem to think that Medicare was designed to destroy health standards in Australia. As the Minister for Health said in his second reading speech yesterday, it would not be in the interests of any government, let alone a Labor Government, to introduce guidelines that prompted an exodus of specialists from the public hospital system. We depend on these people for the excellence of care that is currently provided in our public hospitals. Rights of private practice are an important element in attracting high quality medical staff to the public hospitals. This Government believes that, while some of those private practice rights are in need of reform, it would be counterproductive in the extreme to abolish them. In fact, if a government were foolish enough to impose unreasonable guidelines under section 17 these specialists would have an immediate recourse to withdraw their already established private practices outside public hospitals. They obviously do not need the direct protection of a law necessary for a salaried employee. Nevertheless, the Government has tried every possible way to come up with reasonable terms to meet the doctors' objections whilst sticking to the principles of the section 17 arrangements. I will go through some of the stages chronologically in this long battle by the doctors: On 11 January 1984 the Minister met with representatives of the AMA to discuss their objections. On 24 January the Minister announced he would set up the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals under the chairmanship of Professor David Penington. On 9 February the AMA's attention then turned to the Minister's unfettered powers under section 17 to alter their conditions. In negotiations with the AMA it was agreed that terms of reference for the Penington inquiry would include consultative procedures prior to variation of the guidelines and appeal or review procedures in relation to these arrangements. The Minister also gave the AMA a guarantee that the guidelines would not be altered or extended until the report of the inquiry had been extended. So the AMA then objected to the new national list of facility charges for prescribed diagnostic items. Again, the Government agreed to refer the question of the national list of facility charges to the inquiry and to allow the existing facility charges to remain in force until the inquiry reported. On 16 February the AMA did agree to participate in the inquiry and that was the only concession it made. However, following the 16 February meeting the Federal President of the AMA, Dr Thompson, publicly stated that the Government's concessions and the inquiry had provided a real basis for a resolution of the dispute. Some people just do not take into account the determination of certain doctors. On 22 February the Government's proposals were rejected by a meeting of the AMA and specialist groups. Then the guidelines that were introduced on 29 February were revised to ensure that the only significant requirements for the agreements between the hospital and the doctor were that charges raised be at or below the schedule fee. This is not a government fee. It is a fee set annually by an independent arbitrator after hearing argument from the Government, the AMA and other interested parties. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(8.00) —When we suspended the sitting for dinner at 6.30 I was detailing the long struggle between a certain group in the medical profession and the Government on the Medicare legislation. Rather than sum up what I have been saying I will quote from an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 February 1984. It is not often I will quote that paper to sum up my arguments but this, I think, is very accurate. At the end of the editorial entitled 'Doctors, cash and mystique', the Herald stated: The provision of diagnostic services is notorious for over-servicing. The Federal Government would be derelict in its duty to the public if it did not seek to control over-servicing and the exploitation of public hospital facilities for private gain. The Government has been most conciliatory, indeed, compromising in its dealings with the AMA. It should now stand firm and let the doctors do their worst. And the long-suffering public should be under no illusion as to the respective identities of the good guys and the bad guys. Having identified us with the good guys, and even girls, I will continue by saying that I had reached the stage in chronologically going through some of the steps in the battle where the guidelines introduced on 29 February were revised to ensure that the only significant requirement for the agreements between the hospital and the doctor was that charges raised be at or below the schedule fee. I repeat a very important point: This is not a government fee. It is a fee set annually by an independent arbitrator after hearing argument from government, the Australian Medical Association and other interested parties. At a meeting on 2 March the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) offered, first, to give an undertaking in writing that during the period of the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals there would be no change of any sort in the guidelines as gazetted on 29 February or in the details of their application; and, second, in respect of the recommendations of the Penington Committee relating to appeal and review procedures, that the Government would advise the Penington Committee that the it had no objection to recommendations providing for such procedures and would accept the recommendations of the inquiry on that matter. In return, the Government sought an assurance that the AMA would recommend to the members of its profession that they sign written agreements in accordance with current guidelines and, secondly, that there be no discrimination against Medicare-only patients in recognised hospitals. The Federal AMA agreed that this was reasonable but the compromise offered by the Prime Minister was rejected at a meeting of the AMA. Several attempts to arrange a meeting of the Federal and State health Ministers with the Federal and State branches of the AMA and the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists have failed because the medical profession has refused to attend. We have reached the stage tonight where, because Senator Haines of the Australian Democrats has put forward a constructive proposal which would give immediate substance to the Prime Minister's undertaking of 2 March to institute appeal provisions into section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, we are putting forward this Bill. The Government has adopted Senator Haines's proposal in this Bill. Therefore, there can now be no argument that the Minister's powers under section 17 of the Act will be considerably fettered and restricted both formally through legislation as well as in practical reality. The two practical objectives of this Bill are to empower the Senate to disallow guidelines on doctors' contracts if it believes the guidelines are unreasonable and enable the Government to pay Medicare benefits for services even when doctors refuse to sign disputed contracts. In addition, the Government has agreed in principle to regular arbitrated review of the schedule fee after negotiations with the AMA. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, the speed with which the Government moved to secure an arbitrated interim fee increase once the wage pause was ended should also establish the genuine interest of the Government in this matter. I am sure that the majority of the medical profession will accept this public act of good faith by the Government and cease the current industrial action in the best interests of their patients' welfare. As a matter of fact, I am astounded that the Opposition is not accepting this. Certain doctors have tried to destroy Medicare but the only casualty of the doctors' action will be the doctors' reputations. Certain top, expensive, yacht-sailing, born-to-be-better- than-the-rest-of-us specialist doctors will fall from the pedestal on which our respect previously placed them. The person who will go on to a pedestal in the opinion of the Australian people will be the current Minister for Health. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.06) —This Parliament has quite a number of recently arrived members and many honourable members who have been here for only a handful of years who would not recall the early 1970s when the now Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) as Minister for Social Security set about introducing Medibank. The opposition to Medibank and the determination of the medical profession to oppose it is much the same today as it was then. In the early 1970s the doctors said: 'We will make a fortune out of Medibank, but despite that we are opposed to it'. That was the view of 99 per cent of the profession. They believed very strongly and rigidly that the socialisation, the nationalisation, of health would mean the destruction of what is probably the world's best health system. That is what we are witnessing now-another step down the road. I cannot blame any doctor in this country for not trusting the Australian Labor Party in government in its approach to health. Mr Hand —Look what they did at the last election. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to cease interjecting. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Mr Speaker, it is obvious we need a couple of psychiatrists in this Parliament to treat some of the left wing members of the Australian Labor Party who are going berserk at the very suggestion that doctors may be motivated by something other than money. Doctors came out of the original Medibank a lot richer than they had been in pre-Medibank days. Doctors then could say, 'We told you so'. It was the government system. The Labor Government implanted into this country a cancerous system in terms of medical care it took from the United Kingdom. Now the Labor Government is modelling its health system on the Canadian system. Mr Hand —You promised to retain it in 1975. You promised to retain Medibank. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Opposition members are quite upset. They cannot deal with rational argument. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member not to invite interjection. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I see that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is in the chamber. I will give three or four examples of why the people of Australia, particularly the doctors, should not trust the intention of the Government in anything it tries to implement in relation to health care. That is why the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the shadow Minister for Health, who is at the table proposed this afternoon that we abandon the proposed new section and go back to the drawing board. It makes a lot of sense because without the co-operation of the medical profession our health system will not work as it should. The employees of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia are an example of why nobody should trust the intentions of the present Government. On 13 August last year the Minister for Health signed a letter himself telling Senator Martin that : The Health Insurance Commission will be giving preference in employment to former health fund staff. On the second page of the letter he continued: The Government is taking special steps to deal with this period- The letter continues. I will not use up my time any further on the letter. The other day the Medical Benefits Fund in Queensland was forced to dismiss 37 workers. A newspaper article about it states: Another 37 Medical Benefits Fund workers were retrenched yesterday, taking the total number of sackings in the State to 83. A spokesman for the Health Minister, Dr Blewett, said that there was no guarantee that any of the workers would receive jobs with Medicare. Heaven forbid! Every time the Government wants to back off on something it is a case of 'a spokesman says'. A few days ago I took on what the Government was doing in relation to Medicare and I have in my possession another letter from the Minister for Health which was addressed to all the pensioners in Australia telling them: . . . DO NOT follow the instructions to complete an enrolment application. A letter from another socialist, Mr Wilcox, the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission, was sent to all the pensioner organisations telling them to tell their members not to join up, that the Government would arrange it automatically. We find that in the last few weeks the system has broken down. The system has not been working. I made public comment on it and what did I get? Another spokesman for Medicare made a statement. Nobody will ever identify himself. They are all spokesmen; they do not have the courage of their convictions. The Minister signs the letters and it is a spokesman who does the dirty work. It is like telling someone to go into the death chamber in San Quentin and that nothing will happen to him. That is what the Government has in mind for the doctors. A couple of days ago the shadow Minister for Health alluded to the speech which the Minister for Health gave last year or in 1982 to the Doctors Reform Society stating that the Government is out to destroy, to nationalise and to socialise the whole system. That is the Government's ultimate aim. What have we seen so far? All the happy lefties are sitting in a row, like green bottles, clapping. They are attacking members of the medical profession saying that their only motive is that of monetary consideration, referring to them as fat yachties falling down from pedestals, from the masts of their yachts , et cetera. You do not understand. You believe that our society is best built by ripping down people from the top, that we should level out the whole of society and everyone will share the proceeds. What you do not understand is that if we have a society in which people can aim to better their standards and to better their ways it is a system which allows people to improve themselves and to progress up the ladder. What do you want to do? Do you want to turn everybody into a public servant? You want to turn every doctor into a public servant and that is your ultimate goal. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member to address the Chair instead of Government members. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Mr Speaker, I appreciate your impartiality in this matter. I know that as a former doctor you are shaking your head in total agreement with what I am saying. Mr SPEAKER —That is most unfair. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I also wish to make the point that people have no reason to trust the Labor Party on this matter. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), said with an appealing voice: 'Of course we cannot afford to offend the doctors. Of course we do not wish them to leave the hospitals. We are dependent upon them. We will not risk losing them'. Half of the speech that the Minister for Health made yesterday refers to the fact that the Government will do nothing to endanger the goodwill of members of the medical profession because we want them in the public hospitals. But the facts are that the constraints and controls that the Minister has introduced under Medicare upon the private hospital system also ensures that the longevity of the private sector in the hospital field is also without guarantee. The Minister has categorised hospitals into three groups to determine how much financial contribution the Federal Government will make and how much money the health funds are allowed to pay hospitals. It is a form of control on hospitals. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) and a Labor member of the Queensland State Parliament, Mr Goss, made headlines on 20 March in Brisbane in a widely read newspaper called the Southern Star. They claimed that the health services in the Sunnybank Private Hospital in the southern suburbs of Brisbane are being threatened by lack of support from the State Health Minister; it was all his fault that the categorisation system was introduced! A few days later I received a letter from the Minister for Health. He signed the letter so I suppose at the time he meant what was said. It states: I refer to your personal representations on behalf of the Sunnybank Private Hospital concerning the categorisation of that hospital under Medicare. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that we are dealing with the Health Insurance Amendment Bill, which is narrow in its ambit, but debate has been widened by the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar. The honourable member is straying from the subject of the Bill and the amendment. I ask him to pay some regard to that. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Mr Speaker, I am trying to outline why doctors have every justification for failing to accept the word of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I am giving examples in writing. I am trying to outline where this Government has let down people, the medical profession or others in the field of health care. That is what I am endeavouring to do. Mr SPEAKER —I was hoping I would bring the honourable member back to that point. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I will stick to that subject. The letter, which is on this subject, continues: Acting on the formal request by the hospital that I review the initial category determined for it, I have examined the hospital's submission that it should be reclassified from Category 2 to Category 1. As a result of my examination,- this is Dr Blewett- I have decided to confirm the initial category determined for the hospital. The hospital has been advised by my Department of my decision, and that a statement of reasons will be forwarded as soon as possible. So the letter goes on. We have Labor politicians running around the electorate saying that the State is responsible for the categorisation of hospitals which has almost forced the closure of some private hospitals in Queensland. Yet the letter I have quoted is a clear example of the fact that it is something that was invented by the Minister for Health. It was introduced with Medicare and it is something which has stripped the private sector once again. I have another letter stating why people have no reason to trust Labor and why doctors should be and are particularly concerned. My office received the letter vocadexed from a constituent in my electorate. The letter talks about the writer 's daughter. Before the days of Medicare when she went to her general practitioner she paid him $18.60 per visit and always recovered the lot from a private health fund. Now she can recover only $9.90 from Medicare-she adds that this amount is sometimes increased to $10.20-and therefore she will be out of pocket. Mr Saunderson —What is the schedule fee? The doctor is ripping her off. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member should just quieten down. The letter states: On discussing this with our doctor, he informed me that Item 5 which is a normal consultation, applies from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. daily Monday to Friday and 8 A.M. to 1 P.M. Saturday. In other words, a G.P. is expected to work for 65 hours per week at ordinary common fee or charges. My constituent states: This is absolutely outrageous, as what unionist, or average person works even better than 40 hours for standard pay. She goes on to make a case. The only mistake the person made is when she said: . . . I would like to know if Dr Blewett would work for 65 hours per week for ordinary pay. I can assure that constituent that the Minister for Health would probably work for about 100 hours a week for a set salary. That is probably one of the problems that he has brought on his own shoulders as a result of his intransigence. To return to the Bill, I believe that the medical profession has every reason to be wary and concerned about the long term intentions of the Minister for Health and nearly every Labor Party politician because they are out to destroy the profession, to socialise and nationalise it and to strip it of its individualism. The tragedy is that half the Labor Party members do not understand that there is a relationship between the doctor and the patient which has been created as a result of a system which, even with its warts and weaknesses in the past, has been allowed to exist in this country for so long. It is absolutely ironic that it was the Curtin Labor Government that in 1946 proposed an alteration to the Constitution to try to protect the medical profession and the dentistry profession from nationalisation. The Minister is an academic doctor-he is not a doctor of medicine-who sat in his enclave in Adelaide for all these years dreaming up how to evolve the perfect health system. He talks in the House about the two million people he claims were previously not covered. I will willingly concede that the one thing wrong with the previous health system which existed in this country was that there was too much of a cut-off point in terms of income and that there was not graded assistance from those who had their health benefits completely paid. The Minister knows what I am talking about. If we had introduced the graded system there would not have been any problem with the health system which previously existed. But what the Government has done is to tip out the lot. It has tipped out the baby with the water. It has completely changed and transformed the system and has set about to destroy the private sector and the health funds. Without returning to an old hobby horse, it was proved year in, year out that Medibank Private, which was a government instrumentality, was the most cost inefficient health fund in Australia. It was virtually bankrupt in four of the six States. Yet what has been done? We have handed the whole health care system to an organisation that was devoid of success, that did not have the track record, because the Minister is paranoid about the private sector. He will not allow the private sector to have any part in providing an agency service for Medicare. There are people who have to walk for miles to get a health refund. Mr SPEAKER —I think the honourable member ought to return to the Bill and the amendment. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I was just about to say that the doctors feel very acutely for their patients. They do not want to have happen to them what the Government has done to the people of Australia in relation to Medicare. In conclusion, I do not believe that there is one member on this side of the chamber who would condone stoppages. Honourable members on this side of the House have always been consistent in their attitude to strikes. The Australian Labor Party, on the other hand, is selective. If the stoppage involves members of a professional group, they are looked upon as evil men. If they are non-professionals, their stoppages are justified. The Government believes there is further justification if it can tear down the capitalists and destroy the system. We on this side of the House do not condone stoppages. But we understand and, as far as I am concerned, the doctors have every justification for not having trust. The track record of the Labor Party Government is such that they would be putting their heads into a noose and letting the trapdoor drop. That is exactly how I see it. The Government is disinclined to accept the very sensible request from the Opposition that it go back to the drawing board and try to work out a scheme and a system with which the doctors will comply. One fact of life is that we cannot make a health system work properly without the co-operation of those who dispense the health care, and that is the medical profession, not the academic doctor who sits in this chamber. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(8.23) —When it is all boiled down, this whole issue is about the accountability of the medical profession to the taxpayer and the consumer. The strike action of the Australian Medical Association is a high handed, spoilt brat response to the Australian Government, the Australian taxpayer and the Australian consumer of medical services. The Jamison Report on the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals clearly supports the Government's action and the people of Australia clearly support the Health Insurance Amendment Bill. Judging by the phone calls that I constantly get in my office, the community is absolutely incensed by the greed and elitism of the specialists and the medical profession in general. But the Australian Association of Surgeons, in a letter from its Federal President, Peter Jones, and Federal Secretary, Michael Aroney, to all its members, has a different view. A letter dated 8 March and headed 'Private and Confidential'-we might all ask why it is headed 'Private and Confidential' if these surgeons are acting so nobly in the public interest on such an issue- states: It would appear that health has become the province of the far left of the Federal Government and this is a trade-off so that Mr Hawke may manage the economy without interference from the socialist left. As one of the socialist left I do not have many occasions when I can quote from probably the most conservative newspaper in Australia, Rupert Murdoch's Adelaide newspaper, the News. But I can clearly quote from today's editorial. Today's editorial which is headed 'Militant medical madness' states: . . . on any reasonable assessment of the dispute, it is obvious that the Federal Government has bent over backwards to accommodate the doctors.It has provided for an independent inquiry. It has even been prepared to give authority over public hospital contract guidelines to a Senate in which it does not have a majority. For doctors then to take to the streets of Adelaide and other cities and to threaten a national strike is irresponsible and plain wrong. . . . The Government is almost frantically waving an olive branch. The AMA is brandishing a cudgel. The well-paid doctors should immediately do what they will have to do eventually anyway, sit down, stop making threats, and start talking commonsense. This whole issue is about accountability. It is about the refusal and the inability of members of the medical profession to regulate their own profession in line with what should be their responsibility to society, the taxpayer and the consumer. After thousands of years members of the medical profession, be they witch doctors or our finest surgeons, should now realise that they are not a glorified secret society of infallible gods and godesses. Before I go any further, let me state clearly, unequivocally and emphatically that not all doctors support this rogue action of the elitist AMA. Not all doctors are as insensitive and greedy as the majority attitude represented by the AMA. I have tremendous respect for the skill and the worth of doctors and, in so many cases, the social responsibility that they exhibit. But I ask those doctors who are incensed about the action of the AMA to stand up now and make their voices heard before it is too late. The AMA is giving all doctors a bad name, just as the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) has brought disgrace on his parliamentary colleagues for his puerile and arrogant attack on unemployed people. While I do have respect in many ways for the medical profession, I must now point out what is really going on. I say again that this whole issue is about the total accountability and responsibility of the medical profession. This issue is not just about how much a doctor should be able to charge in a public hospital. This aspect is just a symptom of the decadent irresponsiblity and greed. It is clear from this rogue action of the AMA that the AMA and the majority of its members are quite emphatically stating that the public does not have any right to interfere in any way with their profession and with their business. It is clear that the AMA believes doctors should not be scrutinised in any way, whether it be in the fees they charge or in their professional skills. The medical profession believes, and by its actions and its inaction it clearly shows, that the public in its eyes has no rights. Just to show honourable members what I mean, in 1981 one of my constituents was advised not to have any more children and she subsequently underwent a very simple procedure by surgical standards, a tubal ligation. Normally, the woman would have been unconscious for a few hours at most and in hospital at most for two nights. But because the surgeon perforated the bowel of my constituent with the veness needle used in that procedure, a further emergency operation was needed to save her life. What should have been a simple, no risk operation left my constituent unconscious for 28 hours instead of two, in hospital for 10 days instead of two days, and unnecessarily scarred physically, psychologically and financially. What happens in such a case? This is the accountability that is part of the issue. Does my constituent have any redress as a consumer, because a patient is a consumer of the medical profession? She does have these rights but they are effectively denied to her and just about any other person by the closed shop of the medical profession. While the public quite correctly respects and values the doctors' skills as healers and lifesavers, the public also quite correctly has the right to expect that doctors will professionally accept their fallibility and responsibility for their actions and skills. If a doctor, either by fallible accident or crass incompetence, causes unnecessary injury to a patient, the patient has the right, in law, to expect rectification of the problem without cost and to be able to claim compensation for the damage. But we all know that if the job is botched we do not have a hope in hell of fair and responsible compensation for our pain and any long term consequences. The truth is that any doctor who testified against another would be ostracised by his or her peers in a way that would make the greatest mythological union heavy look just like Father Christmas. Let us not kid ourselves. A doctor who is prepared to stand up for the rights of the patient or for the consumer in this way would be destroyed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member to be somewhat more relevant to the Bill. Mr STAPLES —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to stress that the whole issue is about accountability. I believe that my constituent has suffered at the hands of the medical profession because of this lack of accountability. In response to that she was sent to a solicitor and the solicitor sent her to a doctor. She was told that she should consider herself lucky, she should be grateful. Mr MacKellar —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. You have just asked the honourable member to be relevant and he has just continued on without-- Mr Scott —Don't try to cover up. Mr MacKellar —I am not trying to cover up anything. I am trying to get at least a little bipartisanship and a non-partisan approach into this chamber. Mr Scott —Well, let him finish what he is saying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will remain silent . Dr Blewett —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Speaker, who was in the chair before you, allowed a considerable degree of relevance to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who did not at any stage mention anything in the Bill whatsoever. I presumed therefore that there was a degree of freedom about debate on the health insurance measure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I was not here to hear that, I am sorry. But I still ask the honourable member to try to restrict himself to somewhere near the Bill. Mr STAPLES —My constituent is in the situation whereby she is forced to pay thousands of dollars. We are talking about the fees of the medical profession and what its members expect for that money and what consumers can expect for the money that they have to pay either as individual consumers or taxpayers. Where people are expected to pay over and above the schedule fee this case is particularly relevant. That person has paid out thousands and thousands of dollars to a doctor who did not charge the schedule fee. So that person is suffering regardless. I think that in this instance when the medical profession has decided to take such rogue action in this regard it should be listening to the sorts of comments that it faces and which are not allowed to be brought up in the courts because of the profession's closed-shop attitude. The doctor concerned privately admitted his mistake to her. Other doctors have privately admitted it. As I said before, the reference which the solicitors got was that she should be grateful that she was not killed. The inference was that she should be grateful that the doctor saw what had happened before he withdrew his instruments. I think that is a disgrace. I think it is a sham, like most of the other things that are going on in the AMA at the moment. I wonder whether anyone in the medical profession is prepared to stand up to the AMA on behalf of my constituent or in regard to the fees doctors are charging now as private practitioners in public hospitals. Every year thousands of people-men, women and children-find themselves up against the cold, impenetrable wall of silence, a wall of intimidation, irresponsibility and downright injustice. This woman was told that she was more in need of a good psychiatrist than a good lawyer by this witness doctor of hers. If she had had a good doctor in the first place she would not have needed either a good psychiatrist or a good lawyer. But now she needs both. If doctors are prepared to admit that they can make mistakes and that any medical misadventure is more than just an act of God, if honourable members will pardon the pun, they might find that they would be more genuinely respected by the community and not seen as gold miners and elitist quacks. Perhaps some of them would find their consciences easy to live with as well if they would accept their responsibility to their patients more openly and humanely. The Australian public also has other rights. Apart from their rights as consumers and individuals they have their rights as taxpayers as well. Just as we expect our soldiers, who have been debated in this House today, who are trained and equipped by public money to behave responsibly, so we expect our doctors, who are trained by public money, to behave responsibly. The private doctors who are striking because the Government is insisting that they charge a schedule fee in public hospitals when they use public facilities were also publicly trained and equipped in our public hospitals. Two-thirds of our so- called private admissions by these doctors are to public hospitals. The taxpayer is paying massive hidden subsidies to these private practitioners who demand that they should charge what they like, when they like, at taxpayers' expense. It costs the Australian taxpayer at least $100,000 to put a doctor through a basic medical degree in an Australian university. In any one year the Australian taxpayer is investing about $200m in educating doctors. In any five-year group, by the time a medical student has gone in one end and come out the other with a degree, the Australian taxpayer will have invested $1,000m. One thousand million dollars of taxpayers' money is invested in educating doctors. I think that is particularly relevant. If the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) did not think that the other point was relevant, that point is. Hard work, sweat and blood of millions of Australian workers goes on the education of doctors alone. Mr MacKellar —Ha, ha! Mr STAPLES —The former Minister for Health laughs. Workers' investment in their health and in their families' health is important. No one denies that doctors work very hard and that literally they can achieve miracles. But they should also be reminded who paid for them to learn their skills and on top of that, who buys the equipment and technology used in our hospitals, who builds our hospitals and who supports the paramedical services. No one denies a doctor's right to earn a decent living commensurate with his skills. That should not be denied to any worker. But when radiologists claim that their charges are high because there is a shortage of radiologists, they do not say that it is they who literally have most of the control of the number of radiologists in this country . It is a farce and a con job all the way down the line. It is interesting to note at this stage the attitude of members of the Opposition, those who cackle on the other side. Clearly they support the AMA in this rogue action. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) writes letters to them, begging for money. Clearly the Liberal Party wants its share of the loot as well. The Australian public has been outraged. It is insulted by the overservicing, the outrageous charges, medifraud, and the high-handed arrogance and social irresponsibility of so many members of the medical business. It is about time that the medical profession took stock of itself. The AMA is not a divine union. Its members do make mistakes which cause untold financial and physical hardship to some of its consumers. These consumers need protection and fair claim to compensation. It is well overdue; it is hundreds and it is thousands of years overdue. The South Australian Government is taking steps to protect South Australian patients by bringing in extensive changes to its Medical Practitioners Act. Other enlightened States, such as Victoria, are considering similar steps. On 13 , 14 and 15 April the Victorian Parliament's Social Development Committee will conduct a phone-in to hear from people who have complaints about medical care and the medical profession. This Federal Government is committed to the principle that all Australians have a right to good medical care at a reasonable expense. This Bill clearly has the support of everybody except the Liberal-National Party Opposition and a few members of the AMA. Australia is sick of the spoilt prima donnas of the medical profession. If the medical profession and the Liberal Party want further evidence of this I again turn to the editorial in today's Adelaide News, that conservative newspaper, headed 'Militant Medical Madness'. It states: . . . on any reasonable assessment of the dispute, it is obvious that the Federal Government has bent over backwards to accommodate the doctors. It has provided for an independent inquiry. It has even been prepared to give authority over public hospital contract guidelines to a Senate in which it does not have a majority. For doctors then to take to the streets of Adelaide and other cities and to threaten a national strike is irresponsible and plain wrong. . . . . The Government is almost frantically waving an olive branch. The AMA is brandishing a cudgel. The well-paid doctors should immediately do what they will have to do eventually anyway, sit down, stop making threats and start talking commonsense. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(8.39) —I think that most of the arguments seem to have been canvassed on both sides. I intend to be fairly brief. This debate is over the control of diagnostic testing. I refer honourable members to the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals. One of the recommendations of that inquiry was an urgent review by each of the employment authorities, that is, the hospitals in most cases, of the standards of the salaries set for diagnostic specialists. I ask the Minister for Health ( Dr Blewett): Why, if that is the recommendation of the Jamison inquiry, does he not accept that the independent authorities and the doctors can work out their own problems? If diagnosticians are exceeding what is a fair go in these hospitals, why not let the hospital authority sort it out? Why does the Minister , big brother, have to step in and say: 'I will control all-- Ms McHugh —On behalf of the taxpayer. Mr WHITE —The taxpayers be damned, this is a matter-- Mr Chynoweth —Exactly how you think! Mr Scott —What do you mean by that? Mr WHITE —If those opposite do not mind, I would rather the Minister answer these questions than the mad lefty group over there. In steps the Minister for Health and says: 'I will control them all, despite the recommendations of the Jamison inquiry'. If there are those who are exceeding a fair go, and the medical profession is only too happy to agree that a minority of doctors might be ripping off the system, why cannot the authorities and the doctors sort it out? I would be interested to hear why not. But no, the Minister steps in and says: 'I will fix all this. I will be the decider. There will be no right of appeal'. I put to the House: Would anybody in his right mind put his future into the hands of one man, particularly the Minister for Health who is hell bent on introducing socialised medicine into this country? We are not talking about strike action. We are talking about support for the stance of the doctors and that support is forthcoming from this side of the House. Let us move on to another matter. The Minister has agreed that the original proposals in his Bill are now to be amended. That is what we are talking about tonight. He is saying that he will accept parliamentary scrutiny. That is not a proposal which I greatly favour, and I can understand doctors being very concerned about what might happen when they put their future into the hands of a political institution where power swings from one side to the other and where there is a possibility, very faint I hope, that the Senate might come under the control of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Ronald Edwards —Don't you trust yourself? Mr WHITE —I certainly do not trust you in control of the Senate, and the doctors do not trust you either. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member for McPherson to ignore the interjections and to direct all his comments through the Chair. Mr WHITE —Right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister why, having gone that far , he will not say: 'I have made that concession. We obviously have a big problem which is affecting the health care of thousands of patients throughout this country. I will put it on the back-burner and we will wait for the outcome of this inquiry and go back to the negotiating table and start again'. The proposal of the shadow Minister for Health, of course, is to delete section 17. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible proposal, having made the concessions that the Minister has made, to delete section 17 and to go ahead, if he must, with this mad scheme of his so that at least he can get back to negotiating again with the doctors. The Minister for Health was very keen in various places, particularly in his second reading speech, to quote the Sydney Morning Herald. Other honourable members have also quoted this sentence: Dr Blewett's power . . . is certainly no more and probably a great deal less than that of any other employer. In talking about a group of independent doctors, independent businessmen or anyone who is independent and who takes pride in being independent, why would the Sydney Morning Herald or anyone take up a red flag, wave it in their faces and start talking about an employer? If we are talking about arriving at some reasonable conclusion, why talk about being the doctors' employer, because that is the basis of the whole argument? They do not see themselves as employees of the Government and they are not going to be employees of the Government. The relationship is between the patient and the doctor. It seems to me that of all the foolish things that have been quoted, to talk about the Government being the employer of the doctors is the most foolish of all. That leads to a slightly broader issue, that is, the question of socialised medicine in this country. It is no wonder that there is resistance to socialised medicine. If we look at what has happened in Britain in the last 10 or 15 years we can see the results of it. The big growth industry in Britain now is a return to private enterprise medicine, private hospitals and private practices. That is where it is happening. They have been down this track and it has failed. Why would any sensible people embrace the same dead end road of socialised medicine, of forcing doctors to become public servants, trying to force them into bulk billing and negating any gap insurance and forcing private health funds into sacking thousands of employees if it were not for some great socialist ideology that blinkers them to every other common sense approach? I fully support the amendment put forward by the shadow Minister for Health. The Minister for Health has made concessions in putting forward a proposal for parliamentary scrutiny. All the other issues aside, including the socialised medicine he seems to be determined on, I ask him to look sensibly at the amendment put forward by the shadow Minister for Health. Let reason prevail. It is a most difficult area, which everyone acknowledges. There are rights and wrongs on both sides. For God's sake, let us get back to some sort of negotiation and accept the amendment that has been put forward. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(8.47) —I speak to the Health Insurance Amendment Bill knowing that it deals with a matter which has been given wide coverage in the community. Section 17 of the Medicare legislation has caused agitation among some members of the medical fraternity. I say 'some members of the medical fraternity' because it is patently clear that the majority of doctors have accepted Medicare and are working in the interests of the Australian public. But a small number of bloody-minded doctors have embarked on an industrial campaign which has earned the condemnation of the whole Australian community. These doctors have been encouraged in their futile action by their organisation, the Australian Medical Association. This group originally set out to try to convince the Australian public that this Government was destroying the mythical doctor- patient relationship. This facade was quickly stripped away and the real issue surfaced, the issue of money. These doctors believe that the Government has no right to control the incomes of doctors which are earned in public hospitals. If the doctors were engaged in business like other small business people and were competing in the private area, they might have a legitimate complaint. But they are not competing in that area. The Sydney Morning Herald in its editorial put the position quite clearly when it said: If doctors were simply small businessmen earning a living in a free market, any attempt by governments to limit their incomes would be intolerable. But the medical market is far from free. Doctors sell a service which is almost wholly subsidised by the taxpayer and health-fund contributor. Moreover, public hospitals serve as government-financed workshops for doctors with rights to treat private patients. Doctors have nothing to complain about in terms of governments attempting to control the cost of health care in Australia. They have complained that they are being treated differently and that no other worker in Australia is treated in the same way. They are right. They get away with things that no other worker can get away with. Let us look at the comparison between how the doctors are treated and how other workers are treated. Workers' incomes and their conditions in Australia are controlled by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The workers place their case, through their union, to the Commission, and the employers, the governments and other interested people have the opportunity to put their case. The Commission considers its position and gives its answer. The workers are expected to accept the umpire's decision. If the workers try to buck the system, penalties are applied. Let us look at how the Australian Medical Association and the doctors are treated. They also have an independent tribunal. Their union, the AMA, puts its case as to the level of the schedule fees, which is what determines doctors' incomes. Other interested groups, such as the Government and various other bodies, put their case. The tribunal considers all of that evidence. It weighs it up and makes a decision. But that is where the similarity ends, because the AMA invariably refuses to accept the umpire's decision. It sets its own levels. It ignores the tribunal's decision. It circularises its members and encourages them to charge more than the schedule fee. Mr Donald Cameron —They're fighting for survival; you don't understand it. Mr SAUNDERSON —Just to confirm the very fact, the honourable member for Moreton in attempting to justify the doctors' position gave a very good example, where a local doctor in his area is charging $18 when the schedule fee is $12, that is, $6 above the schedule fee. He is charging Australian citizens more than they should be paying. When an independent tribunal has set the fees and recognised what should be charged, the doctors ignore that and set their own levels. There are no penalties applicable in respect of the millions of dollars that the medical profession rips off the community by overcharging above the schedule fee . They have shown themselves to be selfish and greedy by their selfish and greedy attitude to the public. These doctors have chosen to oppose Medicare. They have selected various issues . At present they are concentrating on section 17. In other areas where they have raised objections and where the Government has set those aside, they have said: 'That is not enough; we have found another area to which we object'. The AMA would have the public believe that it is only reacting like this because it is the socialist actions of this Government to which it is objecting. Perhaps we should look at the AMA's track record in this area. At the end of the last century, the friendly societies in Australia employed around 40 per cent of doctors. They continued to do so until after the Second World War. As late as the early 1950s, contract practice was still thriving. In July 1950, the Minister for Health, Sir Earl Page-Opposition members should recognise that person-estimated that major friendly societies covered 600,000 families for medical benefits. This figure excluded those in hospital funds. The Federal President of the Friendly Societies of Australia estimated that that meant that about two million individuals were covered by the friendly societies for primary medical care provided by doctors who were being paid a fee. But during 1950 the BMA, that is the British Medical Association which was later to become the AMA, unilaterally terminated those agreements. In 1944 the BMA opposed the introduction of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. That scheme was intended to provide free medicines to Australians. The BMA was successful in 1944. In 1947 a further attempt was made to introduce the scheme. The BMA-or the AMA, as it is now known-opposed it again. Even though the Government had passed the Act, the AMA, as it now is, ensured that its doctors did not allow it to operate properly . In 1947 the BMA again rejected the Government's proposal for a national health scheme, even though the then Government had made many concessions to the BMA in an attempt to introduce the scheme. That sounds pretty similar to what is happening today. During the 1960s there was great concern among people in the Australian community over the cost of health. At about that time there were two important official inquiries. There was the Nimmo committee, which reported in 1969, and a Senate select committee, which reported in 1970. In March 1970, the Minister of the then Gorton Government announced a scheme which was to link Commonwealth funds and benefits. But the AMA established its own common fee and ignored that. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald at that time stated: The public may be excused for thinking that the Federal Government's medical benefits scheme was aimed at helping them to meet the high cost of sickness. The medical profession clearly sees it in another light. To them it is a doctors' benefit scheme. After a long public debate on the inadequacies of the present health insurance scheme, Mr Gorton's Government was returned to Canberra last year on a promise that the scheme would be vastly improved. The Government has played its part by pouring out an extra $32.5m in subsidies which will find their way to the doctors. The public has played its role uncomplainingly by agreeing to pay higher insurance rates, but the doctors are not prepared to play their part. It sounds like today. Gorton attacked the AMA. He said that he was appalled at the great increases that it was proposing, and he warned that his Government would fight the AMA with every means at its disposal. He did not believe that any profession should be able to fix its fees at any level which appealed to it when it was supported by public moneys. We all know how the AMA fought alongside the troglodytes of the Opposition benches against the Whitlam Government's Medibank. Is it any wonder that the community no longer holds the medical profession in high esteem when it has such a poor record of concern in the national health treatment area? Let there be no mistake. This Government was given a mandate to introduce a national health scheme. We are charged with ensuring that the $2,000m which is paid to the medical practitioners is wisely and properly spent. The Parliament has been concerned about overservicing, medifraud and tax evasion. Even today, there is plenty of evidence to show that that is still happening. In one of the hospitals in Victoria we find that a radiologist was paid $155,000 in one year, to June 1983. Over-award payments were made to medical practitioners there. Payments were made out of the trustees' accounts for such things as doctors' wives' accommodation overseas, for Christmas presents and for office parties. Who were the trustees? The doctors themselves were the trustees. Is it any wonder that there is great concern on the part of the Government over the expenditure of moneys in health? As I have said, this Government has the responsibility of administering the $2, 000m which is being paid to doctors. We shall ensure that it is paid and spent wisely and properly. Doctors cannot expect to be a privileged part of the community. They cannot expect to receive millions of dollars from the taxpayers to use the facilities which are paid for by the taxpayers to be able to rip off and to earn exorbitant sums, without expecting that the Government will place some controls over that income. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot act out of self-interest, to the detriment of their patients, yet retain the high esteem. They cannot expect that the medical mystique can be used as a weapon without being blunted, and when they resort to union tactics of solidarity they cannot complain when doctors, good and bad, are all roped in together. The amendments that we have put forward in this Bill are yet another concession we have made to the AMA. We have referred most of the doctors' strong objections to the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. This Government has said that it will observe the decisions which are made in relation to those issues but, looking at the track record of the AMA, I expect that it will probably not be prepared to accept the decisions. We have introduced a compromise to section 17 and the doctors have already said that it is not good enough. They do not want any controls at all. They want to continue in the way in which they have been operating, ripping off the public, causing great expense in the health costs of all Australians, and earning exorbitant salaries and wages. This Government will not let them do so. The previous Government and those sitting on the Opposition benches showed that they were incapable of doing that because the doctors were their friends, their supporters , their mates. As has been said, Andrew likes to get some of the money that the doctors have been taking from the public to run his election campaign. As we have said, we will not allow that to happen. This Government has compromised as far as it is going to do. It is time now that the few intransigent doctors who are out there complaining sat down and decided that in any industrial action there is always compromise, not just from one side but from both sides. This Government has compromised its position. It has put up issues for review, it has agreed to go along with proposals. It has compromised on these amendments and the doctors are still saying that they are not prepared to compromise. I know from the reaction of the Press and the media and from constituents in my area that the Australian community is saying to those doctors: 'We have had enough of you and your attitude. You will now have to compromise and accept that this Government has a mandate which the community gave it and which it is implementing. You will have to co-operate with it in allowing this system to work'. As I said, right through the history of Australia the doctors have shown that they will work only in areas in which they receive extremely good benefits. That has come to an end. They will work in this system because this system will benefit the Australian community, not the doctors. All I can say is that we oppose the amendments put forward by the Opposition. All the amendments do is kow tow again to the Opposition's supporters, showing that honourable members opposite have not the strength of conviction to defend their position. They have aligned themselves with a group of people who are castigated right across the community and they deserve, along with those doctors , to be criticised by the community. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(9.04) —We are debating the Health Insurance Amendment Bill tonight because the Government has simply failed to live up to one of the most fundamental precepts on which it was elected to office by the Australian people last March. We were told during the election campaign that honourable members opposite wanted the Australian people to have a government of consensus, a government which would bring all Australians together. We are seeing at this time a classic example of the basic failure of a philosophical principle which was perhaps presented in good faith but which is now being seen by the Australian medical profession for what it is. It is no consensus; it is nothing more or less than a direct attempt to change the fundamental base of the medical profession in Australia to suit the doctrinal views of the Minister for Health ( Dr Blewett), who is at the table, and the left wing of the Australian Labor Party which is so well represented in this House tonight. That is the situation we are facing. My colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has already pointed out the facts very aptly and has proposed to the House appropriate amendments to this Bill to allow us once and for all to get back to a sound system of relationships between, on the one hand, doctors and their patients; and, on the other hand, doctors, the rest of the medical profession, the hospitals in which they provide their services and, above all, the Government. But it is a sad fact that the amendments which have been suggested do not go down that road at all. They have been demonstrated to be unacceptable to the left wing of the Labor Party, which prefers to take the view that all doctors should be employed by the state, and they have proved, for good reason, to be unacceptable to a large number in the medical profession. Let us look at the realities of the situation. A few months ago the Minister told us in this House that the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals had been established to try to overcome this problem. We know that this inquiry will report back to the Government in July. Any government with any sanity, and any Minister with the very semblance of good will towards the people within the area over which he had ministerial responsibility, would surely now put aside section 17 and wait for the report. If the Minister does not do that, one of two solutions can be chosen: Firstly, he is assuming that the report will underwrite everything he has said in this House today and everything that was said by the Government a few months back. Alternatively the Penington report, with the support of the medical profession, will come up with reasonable alternatives to this very pressing and vexatious problem. But, 'Oh no, we can't go down that road' says the Minister, because he wants to be seen in public to be a little Napoleon. All I can say is that he has found his Waterloo. He has found in the medical profession one of the most independent groups in the Australian community, a group of medical people who have given to this country, as my honourable colleague said earlier, one of the highest standards of medical health of any similar country in the Western world. Today we are asked to force those people who have given their services so well in the past to have their future effectively dictated to by a Federal government . I think it is not unreasonable to ask the following simple question: If any honourable members opposite were doctors of good will and good repute- regrettably, some of them lack the latter-what would they do if they found themselves in a situation in which they could well say: 'Why should we trust? What have this Government and this Minister done in the last 12 months in which they have been in office to give the medical profession reason to trust that if we put our futures in their hands we will not be let down?' The simple reality of the situation is that doctors and the medical profession as a whole have every reason to distrust this Government and, in particular, this Minister. On many occasions in the past-in speeches to the Doctors Reform Society, in the odd slippage of the tongue in this House and elsewhere-he has made it quite clear that his fundamental objective is slowly but surely to change the very base of the medical profession's relationship with its patients and that profession's capacity to act independently in Australia. He wants nothing less than an extension in this country of the very worst aspects of the British national health system. Any honourable member who has been to the United Kingdom and seen the problems and the lowering of medical standards that have been brought on that country by the decisions taken 20-odd years ago, and the attempts that have been made over the decades to try to turn back that well worn clock, would appreciate the fact that this Parliament and all its members have a bounden responsibility to think twice before taking this country down a course of action over which we will probably ultimately lose all control and which will certainly, as my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar has so well pointed out, guarantee the Australian people a lowering of their health standards. The point has been made that we are condoning strikes. I emphasise this point: The Opposition does not condone strikes. But this Government and this Minister have done their best, at least over the last two months and even before that, to attack the integrity of the medical profession. This Government sought conflict; it did not seek co-operation or consensus. The Minister came into this House some months ago with his Medicare legislation. The honourable member for Mackellar and I, and many others, spoke on numerous occasions on amendments to that legislation pointing out to this House and to the honourable members in it on that night that what has now taken place is exactly what we believed would happen. The Government on that occasion, without getting the support of the Australian Medical Association, without discussing the matter with the medical profession, simply had the arrogance of its position to assume that, because it was the Federal Government of the day, it could ride roughshod over the interests, the integrity, the expectations and the future of a significant number of people in this country who also have rights. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Health, who is seated at the table, have told us on numerous occasions that what we effectively are seeing is nothing more than an extension by members of the medical profession of their intention to apply the same nonsense we have seen by the Builders Labourers Federation. I remind honourable members that the BLF set out to break the accord. The AMA has not set out to break the accord. All that the AMA has set out to do is assert its right to expect the Government to enter into sensible negotiations with it. So many honourable members opposite simply adore the trade unions of the far Left and their presence in this chamber relates entirely to the support of those trade unions. The Government tries to relate the AMA to the BLF and then it wonders why doctors in this country rise up in fury at the suggestion that there is any relationship at all. This simply demonstrates yet again-I say this to the Minister-the perfidy of his position and the two-faced attitude being adopted by this Government. If this Government wants to be a government of concern and a government of consensus it has to talk to everybody; not just to those who vote Labor; not just to those who fit this Government's own little socialist compact; but to all sections of the community. That is the essence of what consensus is all about. We were told by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) about how terrible it was that a doctor-a radiologist in Victoria-had earned a substantial sum. I suggest to honourable members opposite that if there is a problem-I am not prepared to state in this House that all contracts which have been entered into between doctors and their respective hospitals are necessarily perfect or that they are necessarily always in the national interest or even in the interest of the particular hospital-surely we can ask: What has the Victorian Labor Government been doing about it? What has the Victorian Labor Minister of Health, Mr Roper, been doing about it? That Government has the power and the authority given to it by this Party when we were in government to be in a position to negotiate with doctors, collectively as well as individually, to assert the standards of the contracts which should be applied in State hospitals throughout Victoria. That situation applies in every State of the Commonwealth. If there have been problems in these contracts-the Minister has not demonstrated in this House a clear case that that has been the position; he has simply asserted what a terrible thing it is that some doctors earn more than other doctors-I simply remind him that when he was talking about specialist professions in particular, when he was talking about people such as surgeons, he is assuming that he is dealing with someone who may be able to practice his profession for 30 or 40 or so years. The simple fact of the matter is that many surgeons lose their capacity to act as surgeons. When that happens their income has effectively stopped. If this Government is going to try to apply a standard which draws no distinction between a doctor who graduated this year and a man who has been a top surgeon in Australia for, say, the last 15 years or 20 years, if the Government is not prepared to accept that most patients like to get the best doctor available and they are not necessarily all that interested in getting some nationalised doctor services because that happens to be the doctor on register on the day, all I can say to honourable members opposite is: 'God help you if you get sick in a car accident in January next year'. There is a distinction in terms of the equality of service based on the experience which a doctor may have. If the doctor gets a substantial income, as was suggested by the honourable member for Deakin, it just might be because-I give the honourable member opposite the credit of that-more people want to use his services than somebody else's. But of course in this socialist society of mediocrity which honourable members opposite so strongly support in the left wing of the Australian Labor Party-- Ms McHugh —Why don't you stop insulting the medical profession? Mr CONNOLLY —The honourable member should keep quiet, she does not know what she is talking about. The simple fact of the matter is that this Government wants to bring down the standards of the medical profession and it wants to bring down the standards of medical attention to the Australian people. I would have thought that the situation stands clearly demonstrated tonight. We have also been told by the Minister that he has some fear that these doctors will not maintain the average fee charged under the medical benefits schedule. I wish to quote some figures. I doubt that these figures are incorrect as they happen to be from the AMA. The Minister may well have his own set of figures. It is all right; if the Minister has a different set of figures I would welcome his introducing them into this debate. To date the Minister has failed to do so. These figures represent basic total health care costs up to 1980. They demonstrate that in the two major areas which are the subject of this amendment- pathology and radiology-95.57 per cent of pathologists were applying fees charged as a percentage of the schedule level. In other words, they were effectively below the top of the schedule level. Mr Chynoweth —This is for 1980? Mr CONNOLLY —These are the figures for 1980. But the comment has been made that there is no evidence. As I said earlier, if the Minister has evidence to demonstrate this, let him bring it into this chamber. I am unaware of it and I do not think he has the information either. Turning to the other question of radiologists, in the same period, 1980-as I have said before there is no evidence that this has changed to date-98.88 per cent of the fees charged by radiologists in public hospitals across Australia were within the respective dimensions which the Minister believes should be the basis of this whole argument. I simply suggest to him: Assuming that those figures are correct-I have no reason to doubt that they are-are we not going down a tremendously long and very difficult route to try to make the entire profession fit into the strictures of this new governmental control because it is feared that some doctors may not be, as the Minister would put it, earning the sort of income that he regards as appropriate or precisely appropriate in terms of the left wing of the Labor Party? We are talking about less than 2 per cent of pathologists and less than 5 per cent of radiologists. The Minister told us in his second reading speech that the whole essence of section 17 was that he had to use it as a means of controlling the system; a system which he apparently believes does not get adequate control from State authorities. Tonight I clearly have been prepared to concede that some hospitals may not have had programs and contracts which were necessarily always in the national interest. But having said that, the Minister has not been able to demonstrate in this debate that we have to find a solution to the problem by going down such an absolutely draconian road. He has merely suggested that what we have seen from the AMA is what we see too often in Australia, an example of industrial power being applied, and that there is also a public opinion to be applied. I would venture to suggest that when the Australian people understand the basis of the AMA's complaint, when the people appreciate the realities of the situation in which the doctors of this country are slowly but inexorably going to be forced into ultimately a nationalised health system, where rights of the individual to have any control over his relationship with his doctor either directly or through a hospital are going to be at risk, then I assure honourable members of one thing: There will be a very definite public opinion and it will not be in favour of the Government or of this program which the Government is trying to force upon us at this time. Let us get down to some of the basics of the matter. The Government says it was elected with a platform to reintroduce an extended system of what was then called Medibank and what the Government has now called Medicare. The Government told the Australian people: 'Don't fear, it is not going to cost you any more than the present system of assistance plus insurance'. What did the Government do? The first thing it did was nationalise 80 per cent of the insurance industry insofar as medical insurance is concerned; it forced thousands of people out of their jobs, and it is a government that is so concerned about unemployment! We know all about that. This is a demonstration of the Government's concern. In addition, the Government has now gone to the other extreme of trying to force a change in the relationship between doctors and their patients and trying to force a significant level of doctors into a nationalised system by virtue of the fact that they have no control over the terms of their contracts. Section 17 in its original form said exactly that, that we, the Federal Government of the day, we, the Hawke Labor Government of the day, will determine whether in fact a contract is to be struck. There is not one industrial organisation in this country, not even the same industrial organisation which I said earlier so many honourable members are beholden to, which would be prepared to give to this Parliament the power to determine whether or not their contracts and relationships were acceptable. But in this amendment tonight that is exactly what the Government is asking the AMA and the doctors of Australia to accept. The simple reality is that this is a party House. The Senate is a party House and honourable members opposite do not know and we do not know what the determination, the makeup of the Senate will be after the next Federal election. So why should the doctors be prepared to commit themselves on the basis of a major risk that in fact the Parliament, either today or at some future date will in fact be able to apply an independent determination as to whether those contracts are effectively or should be effectively applied. They know that this is a party House and they know that while the socialist Labor Party controls this chamber and while the Government is in a position to get its legislation through the Senate there is no way they have any basis of trust in this Government which already in 12 months has done so much to destroy in the minds of the medical profession the belief that some of them may once have had that the Government was serious when it said to the Australian people that it would govern on the basis of consensus. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.24) —The Medicare legislation and the Health Insurance Amendment Bill are the culmination of many years of work within and outside the Australian Labor Party. Developed from the experience of many experts in government in the Public Service, in medical practice and in education and health institutions we have a scheme administered without fault by the present Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). The developers of the scheme looked at the experiences under health schemes in other countries. Major contributors to the development of health policies have included medical practitioners on this side of the House. They are: Dr Klugman, the honourable member for Prospect, former shadow Minister for Health and a former medical practitioner; Dr Doug Everingham , the honourable member for Capricornia, a former Minister for Health, a former medical practitioner and a great pioneer in Australian health care; and Dr Don Grimes, Senator for Tasmania and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, a former medical practitioner from Launceston, Minister for Social Security and Minister representing the Minister for Health in the Senate. All of these people are medical practitioners who contribute on our side to our health policy. There is Dr Rosemary Crowley, a senator from South Australia, a former medical practitioner who chaired the Community Health Sub-Committee of the Government which will lead to a community health program, an essential partner to Medicare; Dr Rick Charlesworth, the honourable member for Perth, a former medical practitioner, an expert on sports medicine and an expert on preventative health through fitness; and Dr Harry Jenkins, the honourable member for Scullin, a former medical practitioner, a former shadow Minister for Health in the Victorian Parliament and now the Speaker of this House. Dr Blewett is the Minister for Health and administers the Medicare scheme and our health policies without fault in this place. We have had the benefit and he has had the benefit of the advice of six medical practitioners. At the moment the Opposition has one medical practitioner, Dr Peter Baume, now Senator Peter Baume, a distinguished medical practitioner. I was pleased to be told by Senator Baume that in the electorate of Eden-Monaro practising private medicine is one of the great people in the Australian medical profession and one of the most respected former instructors of trainee doctors, Dr Bill Corliss. Dr Bill Corliss and I believe all his colleagues in Sussex Inlet bulk bill for all patients and probably like many doctors he has made arrangements with the local hospitals so that Medicare patients can have their doctor of choice in the local hospitals. It might well be asked of this Government: Why is the Government interested in containing the costs in hospitals about which we are concerned? Hospitals have become extremely costly institutions. Hospital costs escalated in the late 1960s and early 1970s when justifiable arbitration decisions were made which gave equal pay for women, which gave correct awards for tertiary graduates such as dieticians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. So hospitals since that time have been undergoing justifiable economic challenges. At the same time in the late 1960s and early 1970s doctors were squeezing all they could out of the public via the health funds. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson ) has drawn our attention to that fact. He has quoted the former Prime Minister, Sir John Gorton. Sir John Gorton said that he did not believe that any profession should be able to fix its fees at any level which appeals to it when it is supported by public money. Where are the John Gortons today? Mr Carlton —Not in the Liberal Party. Mr SNOW —There are none in the Liberal Party. Where are the people who believe that none of the professions should fix fees at any levels when it is supported by public money? What is so irksome about this attitude of the minority in the medical profession is that their attitude compares so unfavourably with so many of their paramedical colleagues and so many of their own medical colleagues not only in the Doctors Reform Society but also thousands of doctors throughout Australia who do not agree with the policy of the Australian Medical Association . What is so irksome is that their attitude compares so unfavourably with their sister professions such as the optometrists who mostly prefer to bulk bill for everyone and charge the schedule fee. Optometrists ask me and many other Government members to ensure that they be allowed into the Medicare scheme so that they can bulk bill for patients. Chemists have been bulk billing for 35 years and cannot charge more than their schedule fee. Optometrists' schedule fees are fixed by an independent tribunal. Doctors' fees are also set by an independent tribunal. What more do they want? Chemists' fees are fixed by an independent tribunal, so are the doctors' fees. Yet that is not good enough for a few doctors. Why will doctors not accept arbitration like the rest of us? With infinite patience and good will my friend the Minister for Health has accepted the proposal-it resembled our own proposals -of Senator Haines, the Australian Democrats health spokesman. Senator Haines has challenged doctors by saying: 'What does it mean to you, either principle or money? If it means principle you will vote for this Bill'. Parliament now has the final say on the guidelines through this Bill. Like Senator Haines, I trust the Parliament. Like her this Government trusts the Parliament. But do those few fleecers of the public purse, that minority of specialists, trust the Parliament? I doubt it. No one likes losing income. The bigger you are the harder it is to take. People earning from $150,000 up to possibly $300,000 a year are less than happy with any loss of income. A glance at the circulars that doctors receive indicates how high incomes can go. The ordinary GP and the specialist with a social conscience must wince at the insurance ads which seek business from doctors for loss of income. The ads in these doctors magazines show tables for doctors seeking insurance for loss of incomes not for tens of thousands of dollars but hundreds of thousands of dollars. These few people not only try to undermine health care in Australia they also seek to undermine the economic accord of the Government. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) wants to amend this Bill. What he really wants to do is revert to the system not of hospital and medical benefits for consumers but of a doctors' benefit scheme, just as his Government had-eight of them. This Government is about a fair medical and hospital benefits scheme for all, including the two million people who had no cover at all. We are determined to do that at minimum cost to the Australian taxpayer. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.33) —I believe we really should try to get this debate back to what the whole issue is all about. This debate is nothing to do with money. Government members-Oh! Mr MacKELLAR —I hear the tones of derision from the left corner of the Government benches. The fact of the matter is that this is nothing to do with money. We have heard left wing speaker after left wing speaker on the Government side denigrating the medical profession. They have denigrated the medical profession only in one sense. We have had the medical profession described by speaker after speaker on the Government side as money grubbing and ruthless exploiters of the poor constituents of this country. That has simply nothing to do with the argument. Firstly, it is false and secondly, it has nothing to do with the legislation or with this dispute which is taking place at the present time. We just heard the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) give a recitation about the number of medical doctors in his Party and draw from that some sort of conclusion that because there are a large number of medical practitioners in the Government, the Government health scheme is better than anybody else's. Just the other night, I saw the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, in an address to the members of his constituency, stand up in front of the television camera and say that nine out of 10 Australians are better off under Medicare; they pay less for their medical treatment than they had before. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that some time ago. He has now altered his position. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is a trifle more accurate; he says it is something like seven out of ten. But the honourable member for Eden-Monaro has not progressed; he has not looked at the figures. He keeps trying to hoodwink the members of his electorate . He, let it be said, a pharmacist, should know better. He keeps trying to hoodwink the members of his electorate and others who might be listening that nine out of 10 Australians are better off. He knows it is wrong. The Government knows it is wrong, but no, the lie is repeated and repeated. It is repeated just like the lie from member after member of the left wing of the Government in saying that the doctors of Australia are ripping off the public, that they are nothing but greedy extortionists. That is nonsense. Government members know that it is nonsense. Mr Campbell —You are right when you say that the doctors are ripping off the public. Mr MacKELLAR —I am very glad to have the honourable member for Kalgoorlie joining in the cacophony of complaints from the Government side about the doctors of Australia. The fact of the matter is that the standard of Australian medical practice is amongst the highest in the world. It is the envy of countries right throughout the world. I will return to the matter that I raised to start with. Nothing in this dispute has anything to do with money. The fact of the matter is that the medical specialists who work in public hospitals do not charge more than the schedule fee. The Minister for Health, who is sitting at the table, has been advised by the State Labor Ministers for health in Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales that the vast majority of medical specialists practising in public hospitals do not charge more than the schedule fee. If the Minister disputes that statement let him come out and say so for the first time. I would like to see the figures. Dr Blewett —You said medical specialists. Mr MacKELLAR —I said: 'Let me see the figures'. The Minister has not delineated those at this stage. The dispute is about section 17. What does section 17 do? In simple terms it gives the Government and this Minister total power to dictate the working conditions that medical specialists, in particular cases, have to undertake before they are allowed to work in public hospitals. That is what it does. We all know that those left wing members of the Government, if they were speaking for their unions, would not have a bar of any employer putting those sorts of conditions. Let us talk a little about employers. The Minister for Health has said that he employs the doctors. Who employs the doctors? The patients employ the doctors. What this Minister is trying to do is to bring government intervention-the bureaucrats-into the special relationship between the patient and his or her doctor. That is what is happening. That is what this section 17 is all about. No trade unionist would have a bar of it. What this Government is trying to do is to introduce through backdoor, cheap, snide methods the first stage of the nationalisation of the medical fraternity in this country. Why does the Government not come out in the open and admit that? No, the Government is going to adopt the Fabian approach and do it gradually. The Minister himself revealed the entire plan when he was talking to the Doctors Reform Society last year. He said: 'We are going this far to start with; we will move to the other practitioners later on'. That is what is happening. This Government is convinced of and dedicated to the belief that the only way to move in regard to medical practice in this country is to nationalise it. This is the first step along that track. What we have is not a dispute about money; what we have is a situation whereby the Government is seeking to take that first step in the nationalisation of the medical profession. It is unnecessary at this stage. The Minister talks about how conciliatory he has been; how he is inclined to consensus and conciliation. What a load of rubbish. Here we have the first doctors' strike in the history of this country solely as a result of this man's intransigence. Here we have the first doctors' strike in the history of this country and the Minister is trying to say that he is conciliatory. The Government has set up the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals which is looking at every aspect of these matters. Goodness knows why the Government will not put off any action until the Penington Committee has reported. What could be fairer, what could be more realistic, having set up a committee to look at the problems concerning the dispute? Why pour petrol on the flames by acting in advance of the report of that Committee? What is wrong? Where is the fault in logic, having set up the Committee to look at the causes of the dispute and to suggest possible outcomes and possible solutions, which opposes the proposition that the Government should take no action to exacerbate the problem until the Penington Committee has reported? The facts of the matter are simply these. The vast majority of medical specialists working in public hospitals do not charge more than the schedule fee but they are very, very suspicious, and with due cause, about the bona fides of this Government. They will refuse to give any government carte blanche over the pay and conditions under which they will work in public hospitals. Government members would do the same if they were in a similar situation. If they were honest with themselves and the people of Australia they would take exactly the same attitude as the doctors. Government members are not courageous enough or honest enough to say that. If any trade unionist were confronted with a situation such as that proposed by honourable members opposite this Government would defend him to the hilt. But no , they try to portray the medical practitioners of this country as rapacious, as exploiters, as blood suckers. Those are the sorts of terms they use about medical practitioners. They will continue to do that until they become ill. When they become ill suddenly the medical profession and their particular doctor will become an absolute hero. They will listen to that doctor very, very carefully. If that doctor says 'you need such and such a treatment' they will listen to that very carefully because suddenly they will recognise, understand and appreciate the skills, dedication and qualifications that the medical practitioners of Australia bring to the treatment of their patients. To the great credit of the medical practitioners of Australia they will treat Government members. The medical practitioners will provide them with a high quality service despite the things that they have said about them. I have to say a word of congratulation to the Minister for Health. He is the only Minister for Health in the history of this country who has succeeded in bringing the medical profession together. Dr Blewett —The first one to stand up to them. Mr MacKELLAR —He is not the first one to stand up to them. He has succeeded in bringing them together and what has he also succeeded in doing? He has succeeded in putting at risk high quality medical care for the people of Australia. What the Government is all about, and let there be no mistake about this, is that if it persists with the actions that it has taken it will create second class medicine in Australia. If socialised medicine is such a great thing, let us look at medical practice in those totalitarian authoritarian countries which mean so much to so many members of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. Let us look at medical practice in, say, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Why is it that so many people there seek to upgrade their medical skills not in the USSR but outside the USSR? Why is it that the cutting edge, if I can use that term, of medical technology and medical practice is not under socialised authoritarian regimes or is not under socialised authoritarian medicine? It is in medical practice which recognises the rights of medical practitioners to charge for their services, to upgrade their skills and the rights of medical practitioners to have a relationship with their patients free of intervention by bureaucrats or governments of this nature. Section 17 provides that the Minister can do anything to members of the profession in relation to their continued practice in public hospitals with no right of review whatsoever. Where is the fairness in that? I ask Government members who are great humanitarians and great civil rights protectors: Where is the fairness in no right of review? They cannot answer that simple question. The fact is that there is no need at this stage for this provision. If the Minister had any semblance of common sense, if he had any semblance of honesty, he would recognise that the amendment moved by the Opposition provides a very simple commonsense solution to the problem confronting the Government and the medical profession at this stage. The Government has the Penington Committee. It has a timetable for that Committee to report. That Committee is examining the problems confronting the Government and the medical profession in relation to these matters. What could be more simple, more common sense, than to set aside any action which could be termed as provocative on either side until the Penington Committee has reported? It is a simple, straightforward, commonsense, fair and reasonable attitude to take. But no. We will not have that. Mr Ronald Edwards —Cut it out. Mr MacKELLAR —'Cut it out', says the honourable member; we cannot do that. That is too simple; that is too straightforward; that is too fair. What we want to do is to continue this confrontation with the medical profession. What we want to do is to allow a situation in which the left wing anti-medical bigots on the Government side can abuse the medical profession. We do not want to clarify the situation. What we want is confrontation not consensus. What we want to do is to bring about a situation which can lead only to continuing uneasiness and continuing distrust not just for the moment but for years ahead between the medical profession as a whole and this socialist Government. I make one more appeal to the Minister. Have a look at the commonsense solution which is being offered by the Opposition in this case. It does not preclude the Government's options in the future. It has set up the Penington Committee; it can put its case to that Committee. The doctors and the medical profession can put their case to the Penington Committee and the Government can look at the Committee's report. Why not set aside confrontationist action before that Penington Committee reports? It is the simple, straightforward, fair and reasonable thing to do but, of course, that is just too straightforward, too fair and too honest. The Government will not do it, but it should. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(9.49) —Tonight we have heard a tremendous amount of hot air on what is a very important subject. An important piece of legislation has been brought before this Parliament; it was introduced by this Government. It is interesting that honourable members opposite, for the first time in their lives I would have thought, are supporting an industrial strike, an industrial dispute . We do not usually see this. We usually see the exact opposite. But honourable members opposite, including the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who has just spoken, probably for the first time in their lives are supporting industrial action. I do not suppose it is surprising that that industrial action is being taken by one of the most privileged sections of the community. This Government has never said, nor has it suggested in any way, that all doctors are rip-off merchants or blood suckers which I think was the phrase the honourable member used. I think it is equally true to say that some doctors do rip off the system. I have in front of me a document entitled 'Medicare statement of Benefit' that the honourable member would recognise. That document shows that one of the fees asked for by a doctor of an 84-year-old lady was 41.7 per cent over the schedule fee. The only reason he would have asked for that amount was because the lady lived in a fairly well-to-do suburb. But that is beside the point when a doctor is asking nearly 50 per cent more than the schedule fee. Mr Tuckey —He was probably trying to redistribute income. Mr CHARLES —The worst thing about it, if the honourable member for O'Connor thinks about it, is that one can recognise the point of overcharging the schedule fee if the Commonwealth picked it up. I can understand that. I would not agree with it, but I can understand the mentality of someone saying that the Government will pay for it, anyway. But the doctors know that that does not occur and that it is the patient who picks up the difference. So if the doctor overcharges by $20, it comes directly out of the patient's pocket. The patient pays everything over the schedule fee. The doctors rip off their own patients. One example shown in the document is for 41.7 per cent charged over the schedule fee. I assert tonight that that is not a rare occurrence. Mr Carlton —How do we know it is fair dinkum? Mr CHARLES —The honourable member can have a look at it afterwards. We have seen the problems involved in this dispute and it is an industrial dispute-that is all it is-put on by the doctors. It is all about the introduction of Medicare and their rights, or what they see as their rights. Mr Ronald Edwards —To king hit it. Mr CHARLES —To king hit Medicare, as the honourable member for Stirling says, and to charge what they want. This Government believes that in public hospitals, which are paid for by the taxpayers of this country, there should be a schedule fee to which they should adhere. We always forget one aspect of doctors and how they became doctors. The vast majority-75 per cent of doctors, if we use the ratio of State schools to private schools-would have gone through the education system. They then go to a university that is paid for by the taxpayer. They then go to the public hospitals, where they spend several years. Some spend more than a decade learning various specialty skills or surgery. They spend years and years there under taxpayers' money. Yet they turn around and say: 'We want to charge what we want to charge, even though we have used taxpayers' money to be trained for all these years, and now we are using taxpayers' facilities'. Fair crack of the whip. Doctors cannot have it both ways. Medicare, and what the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has said, purely sets forward a health insurance scheme. In the public hospital area we are asking doctors to abide by the schedule fee which is determined in the scheme put forward in the legislation and which is being reviewed by the present Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. When that report comes down, as the Minister said in the House this week, the Government will abide by those decisions. If my memory serves me correctly, he said it in his second reading speech. The doctors will not wear that and, as the Minister interjected during the remarks of the previous speaker, will the Opposition guarantee that the doctors will abide by any decision? They have shown no softening in attitude. They have shown no degree of being able to come to any sort of arrangement whatsoever. Let us not also forget why Medicare is before us. It is a universal health scheme for the benefit of the vast majority of the Australian people. With regard to the forerunners to the scheme-to my memory there were five Fraser Government schemes and there may have been more-they ran one after the other. Each one was to be the last one. All of them were a disaster. All of them supposedly would save the taxpayer money. All of them supposedly would be easier . All of them cost the taxpayer money and all of them sent the health bill through the roof. The whole health portfolio was in a total shambles when this Government came into office. Medicare is a universal health scheme that will benefit the vast majority of people in Australia. Let us not also forget the fact that while it benefits people who cannot, or could not, afford health insurance, it also benefits many public hospitals which were virtually going under because of the thousands of dollars in bad debts of people who just could not pay under the old system introduced by the previous Government, of which the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has been a part over the previous seven years. My time has almost expired. This Government has never attempted to tar all doctors with the same brush. That is not the case . The Minister has never said that. Mr Carlton —What about the Prime Minister and the BLF statement? Mr CHARLES —The Minister has put the Government's case succinctly on a number of occasions. He put it once again in his second reading speech last night. The people of Australia have overwhelmingly voted for Medicare and they will do so again. If there were a referendum on it next week, I know exactly what would happen and who would lose out, and it would not be Medicare, the people of Australia, or this Government. For all those reasons, for all the reasons that the Minister has put forward, the people whom it will benefit most are the vast majority, that is, the middle and lower income earners. For some who cannot afford to take out any private insurance and have not been able to do so for many years this Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Government will bring forward. That is why this Government is strongly defending it. I appeal to doctors to think again, because this Government is not asking too much of them now or over the coming months. The Penington inquiry still has to bring forward its recommendations. I support the motion for the second reading of the amending legislation moved by the Minister and I hope that everyone in this House will do likewise. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.57) —There has been a lot of talk tonight for and against the rights of doctors but I will commence by talking about the poor old taxpayer . He is the Australian who has been promised all sorts of things by this Government. I have a copy of the Australian Labor Party policy speech which was put to the people prior to the election. I guess it could be argued that that was what they voted for. The speech contains statements such as this: The Labor government will return to the basic principle of the right of all Australians to health services according to their medical needs. Tonight we heard the speech of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). It is well known to us all that he also has a family interest in a pharmacy. That, of course, is another industry which, as he mentioned, has managed to come to live with being a servant of the Government. Of course, we know how it has come to live with being a servant of the Government. If we go to his shop it takes five minutes to find the dispensary. We have to fight our way through the beach balls, lollies and all the other things that he is obliged to sell to make a living. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is ranging much further and much wider than any of the previous speakers in the debate. While I and other occupants of the chair have allowed the debate to be far-ranging, I think the honourable member for O'Connor would be helpful to the debate if he got back fairly closely to the question before the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The issue before the Chair is the nationalisation of health schemes. Pharmacies are very much a matter of health and, as such, I am suggesting, Sir-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is attempting to defy the Chair. I have suggested to him that he should refer closely to the matter before the Chair. If he is not prepared to accept the advice of the Chair , he should resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —Sir, I will not take the choice of resuming my seat. It is a pity, nevertheless, that that example could not be extended a little further. Maybe it is a pity that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro did not respond to my interjections on the matter. The fact is that the Australian people are currently having a Claytons of a medical service. They have the Medicare service that you have when you are not having a Medicare service. Approximately $150m has now been collected under the one per cent levy on taxation. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr TUCKEY —I would estimate that after two months the figure is $150m. I looked at the Budget figures this morning. Clearly, that is an estimate, but even if it were a little less it is a lot of money. What are the people getting for it? They are getting precious little because this very debate is about the fact that the Government has failed to deliver a service. The service it has failed to deliver is in our public hospitals. That service, the medical service, is deteriorating daily. This is a brand new scheme. There was absolutely no need whatsoever to introduce it until matters of this nature were resolved. The scheme was not already in existence. This situation did not blow up in a minute. It was clearly known to the Government. The Government went down the track of taxation before delivery. Why could it not have gone down the other track, given the taxpayer a go and let the taxpayer pay his money when it was confident that it could deliver the service? That is a reasonable proposition. I think that those people who voted to support this service as put up in the policy of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) expected that the Government would deliver the goods prior to taxation. That is a reasonable proposition. If the Minister wants to get to his feet after me and say that it is not a proposition and that the Government has the right to start taxing people before it can deliver let him do so. I put it to him again: There was no problem in the Government's being able to negotiate these arrangements prior to introducing the levy on taxation. Whatever time it took that would have been a fair and reasonable deal for the taxpayer. Let me touch on another matter. When the section 17 issue is resolved it will not be resolved in my electorate. My electorate contains dozens of very small, decentralised government hospitals under the Western Australian public hospitals arrangement. They are excellent little hospitals. They are not viable in terms of staffing by public doctors. The only way that they can be retained and be of great convenience to people is to be serviced by private doctors. When this row is over my people-the people who are paying these taxes-will still be private patients and will have to carry private medical cover. That was as clear as the nose on everyone's face to the Minister prior to his introducing this wonderful scheme yet he did nothing to resolve it. In fact, he allowed a situation to remain whereby there is no requirement for bulk billing. I am pleased about that, but while that situation remains and there is no forced bulk billing clearly the doctors in my electorate will opt to treat their patients as private patients. In terms of the local public hospital system those people must maintain their private health cover after having paid the levy. Let us remember that these people, whether they are government employees or not-- Mr Saunderson —Whose fault is that? Mr TUCKEY —It is clearly the fault of the Government for not resolving the problem. If the Government cannot fix the problem, it should just take the taxes off. That is all I am asking the Government to do. It should not tax without being able to deliver the service. I am not arguing for the doctors. Let us also remember that the people who find themselves in this situation, many of whom are employees of the Government, have also had government calculated cost of living allowances added to their salaries. There is no profit in that. That is just a calculation made. Recently I talked to a postmaster in the north-west who gets over $2,000 to compensate him each year for the high cost of living and the other difficulties he faces in that area. There is no profit to him in that but he has now lost one per cent of that allowance because the Medicare levy takes one per cent of that allowance which is granted for other purposes. But that was not the case when he paid for his private health insurance. That was universal across the State. He received it at the same price as did people living in the middle of the metropolitan area. So now he has to continue to pay a level of private health cover. He has to pay one per cent on a cost of living allowance carefully calculated only to compensate him for the costs of living in that area and all because the Government was so anxious to bring this scheme into force without having the responsibility and the decency to measure the cost to certain people and correct those matters first. I object strongly on behalf of my constituents. I have a funny feeling that on the other side of this House are honourable members who have constituents with exactly the same problems. But they will subvert them to the rule of the Australian Labor Party which is: 'One in, all in'. As I mentioned to another member the other night, they are not prepared to face up to the problems of their individual electorates. They would much rather have the collectivist arrangement which operates in their own Caucus whenever they can find it and it is just too bad. I am happy to speak on behalf of the constituents of these honourable members. I am prepared to say that there are grave problems throughout Australia for certain individuals in regard to this program. The blame for all of them rests with the Government because it failed to resolve the problems before it introduced the tax. As I have a couple of minutes left I will address myself very briefly-- Dr Blewett —To the Bill? Mr TUCKEY —This is all about the Bill. I have complained about these problems because that is what they are. They have been talked about and I am now responding to statements which have been made. I presume that the honourable members who made those statements were talking about the Bill because nobody questioned them. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that constantly the gross remuneration of certain doctors is thrown up in this place. The doctor who is in the room at the moment would be able to tell us that that is not the situation. Gross figures highly distort the truth. The fact is that doctors employ people. Those who have the greatest salaries employ the most people. I am not saying this for any other purpose than to make it quite clear to honourable members that that fact must be recognised. If we ask a doctor to take any cut in his gross remuneration he is not able to go to his receptionist or his nurse and say: 'We have just gone on to bulk billing, love. You used to get $250 a week. You will now get $220'. We know that is not the way it works. The only person in the system who can take the cut, of course, is the doctor. Tonight we heard reference to the income insurance schemes of doctors. When a doctor who is the sole source of income in a practice goes out of production he still has the responsibility-I think that honourable members would agree with me -to create employment for those who support him. Clearly, when he insures his income he insures his gross income for the purpose of being able to continue to pay rent and wages. That is misleading too. I say that to the honourable member for Eden-Monaro because normally he is a person for whom we can have the highest regard when it comes to telling the truth and explaining things as they are. He should rethink his statement in that regard. It is clear that if we are to talk about remuneration to doctors we should be fair enough to explain what they keep . I am not suggesting for a moment that it is not necessarily a substantial amount of money. But it is not in the figures which have been bandied around here tonight. We should at least be as honest as that. I have just about run out of time in considering a couple of matters. But let me get down to the final word. The final word is this: There is a lot of talk in Australia about what is now the political position of people and, in particular, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We talk about the right, the left, the centre and all those terms. If anybody wants to know where the Prime Minister stands in the political spectrum, let us remember that within the first 12 months of his Government-the Bill we are talking about now is an example of this-he has set out to nationalise medicine. If that is not socialism, I will go he. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(10.09) —in reply-First of all, I thank honourable members on the government benches for their eloquent defence of the measure. I am afraid that I cannot say the same about honourable members on the opposition benches. I will deal with them in two ways. First of all, I will deal with most of the back bench speakers before addressing the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). I do so because nearly everything said by the back benchers had nothing to do with the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 whatsoever, so it can be dealt with very quickly. However one theme ran through three of the speeches. Let me note that the only relevant remark about the Bill made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) was that doctors made a fortune out of Medibank. I do not know whether that is true, but the whole intention of section 17 is to make sure that doctors do not make a fortune out of Medicare. That was a very relevant remark. There were problems about Medibank and cost control. This is one of the cost control elements of Medicare. Of course, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) said that this issue has nothing to do with money. I shall prove in a moment that it has nothing to do with anything else but money. That is the only issue left. It is not even money now; it is a concern about money in the future. That is the kind of fear that has been spread through the profession. But it is about money, and we will come back to look at that in a moment. I will take up a point made by our friend the honourable member for O'Connor ( Mr Tuckey) about money. He attempted to suggest that the figures we were using were gross figures. Let me give a few net figures. In 1982-83, seven radiologists took out of the Victorian public hospital system a little over $1m net; that is, after all their costs had been paid, all their equipment paid for and all their salaries paid. That did not allow for what they made in their private practices or for any work in private hospitals. There may not have been very much of that, I am prepared to agree, but they took $1m net earnings out of the public hospital system. The $155,000 mentioned this morning in the case of the radiologist in Victoria was a net earning. That is what he took out of the public hospital system after facilities had been paid for and other costs had been paid. Let us not blind ourselves to the fact that this is about money; and increasingly, after all the actions that the Government has taken, it is about practically nothing else but money. Now let me look at a couple of other specific remarks made by some of the back bench speakers. First of all, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) quoted one of the recommendations of the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals, saying that this issue should be left to independent authorities; that is, the hospitals and the doctors. He ignored every other recommendation from the Jamison Committee, which was all about the problems of private practice. Let me answer him on just the point he made. This Government is having a tough enough job insisting that doctors observe the schedule fee in public hopsitals. The honourable member for McPherson said: 'The hospital can do it'. This is the whole point of this operation. Both the hospitals and the State governments find it extremely difficult to make reasonable demands on the medical profession. It is utterly absurd to think that a public hospital can stand up against the weight of this profession on these issues when, as I say, the Commonwealth Government is having a big enough battle to insist on reasonable constraints on private practice behaviour in public hospitals. That is quite clearly the answer to that issue. Let me now look at our friend the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) . There is nothing much to be said about his speech, although I will have another point to make about it in a moment. It was mostly rhetoric. He accused us of breaking the accord by doing what we are doing. There is no hope of the accord working in this country unless all ordinary workers in this country believe that every section of the population is being treated fairly. Unless we can convince people of the fact that all groups of the population, particularly those with the broadest shoulders, the biggest incomes, are also being treated fairly there is no hope of the accord holding. The experience of every overseas country shows that unless we can assure the population that all are being fairly treated the accord cannot work. That is one of the reasons why we are determined to insist on these reasonable contraints on private practice in public hospitals , or else we will never convince the ordinary workers, the people on $10,000 to $20,000 a year, that these people-and none of them are touched before they get to $62,500 a year-are being fairly treated. Unless we can convince people that we are being fair there is no chance that the one hope of economic recovery in this country-that is, the maintenance of the accord-will work. To accuse us of breaking the accord when we are trying to do this seems to me absurd. We are in fact trying to do the opposite. Finally, the honourable member for Warringah, who is not with us, again in a very eloquent speech, asked: 'Why do you not be reasonable? Why do you not put off what is now the only guideline, this insistence that radiologists and pathologists charge the schedule fee, until after Penington reports?'. I am perfectly prepared to put that guideline off if from the Australian Medical Association we can get an agreement that it will accept the recommendations of that Committee. If the AMA is prepared to say, as the Government would be prepared to say, that it will accept the recommendations of the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals, of course we would be prepared to make that compromise. But to make it without that kind of assurance is just to say that we will have another battle in six months time; that is, instead of fighting it out now we will have it again in six months time and prolong it. I am perfectly prepared to make that pledge that if the AMA is prepared to accept the recommendations of the Penington Committee the Government is prepared to accept them and we would put off this proposal. Let me finally turn to the gravamen, the chief source of the argument, the only source of the argument, that came from the Opposition side. First of all, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has moved an amendment. The amendment is the ambit claim of the AMA. What the honourable member for Mackellar has said in this amendment is the extreme demand of the AMA, what it is demanding after all its other objections have been satisfied and after every other point it made was satisfied. We now have the Liberal Opposition presenting in this House the ambit claim of the AMA. I am perfectly happy to see the honourable member for Mackellar as a stooge of the AMA. I am disappointed that that should occur, but I am perfectly happy to see the Opposition sink along with the AMA in the suicidal folly on which it has now embarked. Let me take the specific points made by the honourable member for Mackellar. First of all, he said that our proposals in section 17 are somehow contrary to or getting round the Constitution; that is, the section 51(xxiiiA) placitum on civil conscription. We believe we are perfectly within the Constitution in what we have done. If the AMA does not believe that, it has an appropriate course of proper and legitimate action; that is, to take the Government to the High Court of Australia and challenge that. That would be a preferable and responsible piece of behaviour rather than this industrial militancy it has planned. If the AMA believes, with the honourable member for Mackellar, that there is an argument that this is outside the Constitution-we do not believe it is-the AMA is perfectly entitled legitimately, to take that appeal to the High Court. It is one of the rights it has in this society and it is wealthy enough to do so. That would be a proper way of dealing with this issue. Let me turn to the point made that section 17 is somehow a first step towards nationalisation. First of all, that is rubbish. But in fact we get a lot of support for that rubbish from honourable members who have spoken tonight. Let me just quote from a very interesting document on contractual arrangements. I quote from the 203rd report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts: Another approach would be to permit medical practitioners to participate in the Medical Benefits Scheme and to have their fees subsidised both by Government and fund contributions only if they were registered medical practitioners for the purposes of the Health Insurance Act. Practitioners could apply for registration under the Act, which could be granted subject to conditions . . . . If eligibility- that is, eligibility for payments- depended upon registration as a participating practitioner, more effective administrative control may be able to be exercised without resort to the criminal law. This could take the form of a contractual relationship between the Commonwealth and individual doctors- rather than the present arrangement which is based on the relationship between patient and doctor. To continue: In legal terms, this approach would have the advantage that breach of contract is much easier to prove than fraud, and would emphasise that the medical benefits arrangements impose certain obligations on doctors to abide by the rules. In many ways, the proposals made there, by a committee of which the honourable member for Bradfield was the chairman, are much more wide-ranging-as he said, they affect all medical practitioners-than anything presented in this Bill. Mr Carlton —That is absolute nonsense. You are talking about a different matter. Fraudulent. What you have put up is nonsense. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Burke will cease trying to assist the Minister. Dr BLEWETT —We have not yet finished the kinds of double statements that are made here. I quote now from another report of the Public Accounts Committee, the 212th report. It says: The Committee notes that the Government's Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 provides that Medicare benefits are not payable in respect of prescribed professional services rendered to patients of, or at, recognised State and Territory hospitals unless the doctors have made an agreement (in a form approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Health) with the recognised hospital and unless the doctors were acting in accordance with the approved agreement. In addition, any benefits incorrectly paid will be recoverable . . . This type of contractual arrangement was one of the possible legislative reforms discussed by the Committee in Chapter 8 of the Progress Report- that is the report to which I have already referred- The Committee believes this type of contractual arrangement, and its extension to other areas of medical practice, may greatly assist prosecutions for medical fraud. Not only was the Committee approving of it in relation to public hospitals; it wanted it extended. When I read the names of the signatories to that report, I find the name of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). Does he read the reports to which he puts his name, or was what he has said in the House tonight an absolute contradiction of the support that he gave here for the types of proposals? No doubt Opposition members can clarify the position for me. But I make both those points-the point from the honourable member for Bradfield and the point from the honourable member for McPherson-to say that to see these kinds of arrangements as nationalisation is absolutely absurd. I do not believe that when the honourable member for Bradfield was making these proposals he was making proposals about nationalisation. I do not believe that the honourable member for McPherson, when he signed his name to that report, was making proposals for nationalisation. There is no intention-- Mr Carlton —Your proposals are different. Dr BLEWETT —My proposals are not different. I may just say to the honourable member for Mackellar that the honourable member for McPherson was referring directly to section 17 of the legislation. There is no intention of nationalising in these proposals, just as, as I say, there was no intention of nationalising, I believe-the honourable member for Bradfield may explain otherwise-in the proposals of the honourable member for Bradfield or in the proposals of the honourable member for McPherson. What we were doing, as they were doing, was simply saying that private practice rights in public hospitals must meet certain guidelines in the interests of the community. Indeed, we are concerned with preserving private fee-for-service practice. We are not removing that from the hospitals in any of these guidelines, but we are saying that if doctors are to have these private fee-for-service rights in public hospitals they must observe certain conditions and certain responsibilities towards the taxpayers who fund the hospitals, the equipment and the staff. So there is nothing in those guidelines which is aimed at nationalisation of the medical profession. Indeed, the guidelines were brought in because we wanted to protect, in the long run, private practice rights-unlike the Medibank arrangement where both with pathology and radiology the specialists simply became public services in public hospitals. We rejected that proposal and we said that they would remain private services; that there could be private practice rights in them but that they would have to observe certain conditions in the public interest. I did not recognise the caricature presented by the honourable member for Mackellar of my colleagues Mr Roper, Dr Cornwall and Mr Mulock. I just want to say that they have supported these proposals throughout; at least Dr Cornwall and Mr Roper helped to create them and supported them because they realised the need for the Commonwealth's support, with its insurance power, to help solve some of the problems in the area. Before I come to the final point in the argument, let me say that I thought that the honourable member for Mackellar, who is constantly condemning me and honourable members on this side of the House for our attacks on doctors, was himself guilty of a most gross attack on all salaried doctors in Australia. The implication of his remarks-the notion that if doctors are in some way constrained or controlled it leads to mediocrity-is a reflection on all salaried doctors. The honourable member is saying that if people accept salaries instead of these private fee-for-service arrangements-- Mr Carlton —There must be a choice one way or the other. Dr BLEWETT —And we allow that choice. But the honourable member is saying that somehow or other this is a mediocre service. So I think that one should be very careful in these general reflections on members of the medical profession, as made by the honourable member. Mr Carlton —That is a total misrepresentation of my position. Dr BLEWETT —It is a reflection on them to talk about mediocrity if we have salaried type services. Finally, let me just look at what on earth doctors are striking about. There is only one guideline in place, and that is the guideline that radiologists and pathologists should not charge more for their services than the schedule fee, a fee set by arbitration and not by the Government. That is the only guideline that we are asking these medical practitioners to observe. All the other constraints have been put aside by the Government, in an effort to negotiate, and they have been referred to the Penington Committee. So that issue is removed from any decision until Penington reports. Secondly, there is the question that we might change the guidelines before Penington reports. We have given a guarantee that there will be no change in the guidelines until Penington reports. Of course, there is a further guarantee of that now because this Bill makes provision so that both Houses of Parliament are able to review any guidelines and reject them. This Government does not have a majority in the upper House and therefore it would have to convince the members of the upper House of the reasonableness of any proposal before that could go through. That kind of fettered power is removed entirely, so the doctors do not have that claim to make. Again, we are not requiring doctors in nearly all of the States to sign any documents or letters, which was another of their worries. We have taken other methods through this measure to ensure that that requirement will not be imposed on them. Again, some of the doctors have now said: 'If you impose the schedule fee, you might not change it for five years; you might have no arbitration for five years and that will affect our income'. We have made the guarantee to deal with that fear. In principle, the Government accepts that there will be regular schedule fee arbitrated reviews, and those regular reviews of the arbitrated fee we guarantee. So that problem, that fear, is removed. Mr Carlton —You have not addressed the scope of section 17. Dr BLEWETT —Finally, let me deal with the two points which the honourable member has just raised, including the scope. Of course, the scope is general; but it cannot be changed without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. As we have also pointed out, none of it will be effected until Penington has reported, because Penington has been asked to look at all these issues. The Government has said that any arbitration proposal, any appeals proposal and any consultation proposal recommended by Penington will be accepted in advance by this Government . After all that has been done, I believe that there is not a single excuse for the kind of industrial action that threatens the people of this country. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— 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 Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, 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.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Millar, P. C.Cowan, D. B. Moore, J. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Newman, K. E.Drummond, P. H. O'Keefe, F. L.Edwards, Harry Porter, J. R.Fife, W. C. Robinson, IanFisher, P. S. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Shipton, R. F.Hall, Steel Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Klugman, R. E. Coleman, W. P.O'Neil, L. R. T. Andrew, J. N.Cunningham, B. T. Cadman, A. G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —It being past 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-Mr Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.40) —This week I have as my guests in Canberra two high school students from my electorate of O'Connor. They are Evan Porter, who is aged 16 years, who comes from a small town called Narrikup and who is a student at the Mount Barker Senior High School; and Jenny Crauch, who is aged 17 years, who comes from Borden and who is a student at the Katanning Senior High School. At times Jenny is also a resident at St Andrews Hostel in Katanning. These young people are in the House tonight. They have been my guests at Parliament House all week. They are having a view of how we, the leaders of their society, conduct the affairs of the nation. I am sure that they have been quite interested. Nevertheless, they are here with me and I am sure that all honourable members would welcome them to the House. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr TUCKEY —I thank the House. Mr Simmons —This is the speech you gave last year. Mr TUCKEY —Last year I had two different people. This is not the same speech. The speech is prepared by the young people themselves. Narrikup is a small siding centre. Mount Barker is a regional centre, the centre for the Plantagenet Shire and a very large service centre to the Great Southern. Mount Barker is very close to the residence of another well known member of Parliament, the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond). Existing industry in the Mount Barker area includes wine production. I am pleased that Plantagenet wines are available in the parliamentary dining rooms. Many years ago Mount Barker was a major centre for the apple industry. It is pleasing to note that as that demand reduced, the wine industry was there to create employment and keep the region prosperous. Nevertheless, the region is principally one of mixed farming. It has a great tourist potential because two of the higher mountain ranges of Western Australia, the Porongurups and the Stirlings, are within the Plantagenet Shire. Many Western Australians enjoy the opportunity to go through those areas. The Principal of Mount Barker High School is Mr Stevens. That school has about 350 students and is one of the few high schools that have an agricultural wing attached. As I have said, Jenny Crauch comes from Katanning High School which is a larger high school, with approximately 600 students. The Principal at that school is Mr Johnston. Being a larger high school it has an associated government school hostel, St Andrews. About 110 pupils reside there during the school year. It is interesting that Jenny has brought to our attention the fact that the name Katanning is derived from the Aboriginal word 'Kartinup', meaning a meeting place. Although many of the old people used to say that, as the railway line runs right down the main street, the word 'Katanning' came from the noise of the trains. But it is really derived from an Aboriginal word. Katanning is about 300 kilometres from Perth and has a shire population of about 5,000 people. It was originally established by Frederick Henry Piesse. Katanning is an interesting place. It has always had a progressive attitude. It was the first country town in Western Australia to have electric light, because of the efforts of Mr Piesse. The town relies heavily on an abattoir industry. It is interesting to note that 300 Malays from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island are living in the town. They have integrated perfectly in that town. In 1981 I had the privilege of being present when Tunku Abdul Rahman opened a mosque in Katanning. It is a wonderful example of integration in our community, one of which all Australians can be proud, most particularly the residents of Katanning. I thank these young people for showing the interest to come to Canberra to see how things go on. I will bring other children. I hope at that time, Mr Speaker, I have your indulgence and that of the House to bring to your attention the presence of these young people and to present the speeches that they write. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.44) —It is five years since the accident at the nuclear power reactor at Three Mile Island. As a matter of fact yesterday, 28 March 1984 , was the anniversary of that accident five years ago. Everyone remembers the shock of that accident and the fact that it could happen; that the technology of nuclear reactors was not foolproof. Everyone remembers the fears for the local residents and then the months of new revelations as management was forced to admit more and more details of the accident. Before Three Mile Island there were hypothetical calculations of what happens to a superhot uranium fuel core when it loses cooling water. That was what occurred early on 28 March 1979 when a series of mechanical and human errors caused steam to escape through a pressure relief valve, draining coolant and causing temperatures in the core to soar to 4 .5 times above normal. At first it was thought that the plant was not severely damaged and would be back in operation within a couple of weeks. In reality, the damage was enormous. It took 15 months before two engineers entered the containment building for the first time. In the months and years after that there came more problems, more doubts about the ability to solve the problems, fewer reassurances for the community and fewer solutions to the problems. What I want to talk about and emphasise tonight is the unimagined and still unresolved financial problems associated with that nuclear disaster. In dollars, it has actually cost seven times more to deal with the aftermath than it did to build the unit 2 reactor which went into commercial service just three months before the accident. I want to talk about the enormity of the cost, as it was a pretty enormous cost. Who pays for it? That is one of the unsolved problems. Do the insurers pay? Does the company pay? Do the electricity consumers pay? Does the Government pay? Utilities and the nuclear industry are widely split on who should pay for the Three Mile Island clean-up. The owner of the damaged nuclear plant, General Public Utilities Corporation, says that the problem is a national one. It hired a former member of Congress to try to work out a solution. One proposal would, in effect, force electric utility customers in the United States of America to pay the multimillion dollar cost of cleaning up after the Three Mile Island accident. However, some people think that the federal Government should pay for the clean-up. Adding to the pressures in 1981 for quick action was the possibility that the GPU could go bankrupt and there would be an exhaustion of the insurance money to clean up the radioactive mess that remained at Three Mile Island. Some experts insist that the longer the clean-up is delayed the greater the chance of another health and safety problem at the site. By 1982 clean-up operations at the plant had crept along at a snail's pace as GPU waited to see where the clean-up money was coming from. Before the accident GPU was in a sound financial position and its shares were high on the stock market. At the time of the accident it carried the maximum amount of property insurance available, $300m. About two-thirds of this money had already been spent by 1981. The company originally estimated that the clean- up would cost about $400m, meaning that the company would have to come up with yet another $100m above its insurance payment. By 1982 the clean-up was taking longer than expected and, because of inflation, it was estimated to cost at least $1 billion. Decontamination does not come cheaply. Four hundred and nine million dollars have already been spent. Now, in 1984, five years after the accident, or ' incident' as it is called in the nuclear industry, at least two years of decontamination work lies ahead at an additional cost of $591m. While we are naturally wary of possible future incidents in the nuclear power industry, let the 'industry' itself and those who support it beware of the insurmountable, never-ending financial problems. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(10.49) —Over the last few days the Government, and particularly the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), who is the honourable member for Swan and who is from Western Australia, have been trying to tell the Western Australians that they have not been forgotten by this innovation in tourist travel, the Air Pass. In fact the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has said that this imaginative new initiative will knock all Australians on their ears. The Minister for Aviation, in answer to a dorothy dix question from the equally ill-informed honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) from Western Australia, used as an example, might I say his only example, the benefits that will be derived by Western Australians. In his answer to this question he was criticising our very capable shadow Minister for Tourism, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) when he said-this is the Minister for Aviation on Wednesday-that Western Australians could get to the eastern States using the $500 fare. Might I say he did not indicate how Western Australians could get back, but we certainly could get to the eastern States. I can understand the pressures that Ministers are under when answering questions. The Minister for Aviation is a very busy person, he sort of shadow boxes around and gets his duds up all the time and gives his old nose a bit of a wipe, but his concentration must have lapsed a little bit. If anyone from the west wants to get to the eastern States he can get a return fare for $381, a flexi-fare to Sydney and back, let alone having to use the $500 fare. The main point I wish to raise is: The Minister cites examples of two different situations that may occur regarding the $500, 6,000-kilometre fare or the $800, l0,000-kilometre fare. He states: For example, under the $500 fare they could- that is, Western Australians- fly Perth-Darwin-Alice Springs-Perth at a saving of $272 on the price. Unfortunately I have news for him. I do not know whether he is aware of it already, but a number of my constituents have sought that fare to do exactly that. In fact, one of my constituents and his three friends were going to charter a light aircraft to do exactly that, cancelled the light aircraft and decided they would avail themselves of the new fare. Unfortunately that is not available to Western Australians. The trip happens to be 160 kilometres over 6, 000 kilometres. If a Western Australian wants to use the Kangaroo Air Pass it will cost him $800, will it not? I advise the Minister for Aviation that that fare is not available. It is l60 kilometres over. Mr Groom —I think he has misled the House. Mr DRUMMOND —I would not suggest that he has misled the House. I do not imply that. I think it is just a lack of homework. The Minister has lambasted our shadow Minister for Tourism who made certain statements in the West Australian. The Minister for Aviation answered in the West Australian, criticising our excellent honourable member for Higgins. I am afraid the Minister will find that the honourable member for Higgins is right. If the Minister for Aviation and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism really want to knock us on our ears, why do they not work towards developing a truly competitive domestic airline system? They should rethink cross country charter flights; rethink giving Qantas Airways Ltd the right to carry passengers across Australia; and rethink perhaps the third line operator from Western Australia, Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd and then perhaps air travel to and from Western Australia might be more appealing. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.55) —Tonight I would like to touch briefly on two areas which concern racism in our society. Before I commence, I would like to place on record my congratulations to Charles Perkins on his appointment today as head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I do that as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I regret what occurred in this place today when the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Barker, (Mr Porter), saw fit to attack Charles Perkins in an unfair way. I think it is disappointing. I have already had a couple of members of the Opposition suggest to me that they regret what occurred. They thought it would have been a proper thing for the shadow Minister to congratulate Charles Perkins on his appointment. I regret the failure by the Opposition to acknowledge the appointment of an Aboriginal for the first time in this country to such a high position. I would like to congratulate Charles on his appointment. There is a motion on the Notice Paper in my name which deals with racism. I would like to bring to the attention of the House a poster that appeared in my electorate. I think it will concern all honourable members of this House. It reads: Stop the Asian invasion. Say no to mass Asian immigration. Say no to cheap Asian imports. Say no to Asian-American corporations. Support the National Action, Box . . . It is interesting that honourable members of the Opposition laugh at that, but I happen to represent somewhere between 14,000 and 16,000 Asian people. I am proud to do so. I resent those people who print this sort of literature going around the electorate of Melbourne pasting it up, inciting racial hatred to a degree which I think is equal to what occurred in Europe prior to the Second World War. We have a situation in this country where people are presenting racist type arguments to our community. On the one hand we have people like Ruxton of the Returned Services League. I have spoken about him in this place before. He expresses extreme racial hatred every time he or people like Jennifer McCallum from the People Against Communism speak to any rally in Victoria. Mr Ewen Cameron —Fought for Australia. Mr HAND —Fought for Australia? He is no lone ranger there in fighting for Australia, but it gives him no right to attack people in the racist way he does, continually at rallies and on the radio. It astounds me how responsible people in charge of our media allow an individual of that calibre to make such statements. Sir William Keyes, in an article in the Canberra Times, condemns Ruxton for his racist statements and dissociates the RSL from him. I am pleased to see that occur. In the middle of this we have the very slick-he is sometimes too smooth for his own good-comments made by the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs , the honourable member for Denison, (Mr Hodgman), in this place. It is interesting to see that the shadow Minister continually refers to the need to go back to our traditional areas of migration. In a recent speech he criticised the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, (Mr West), on the question of the intakes from Asia. We heard him talk about how he was a member of this organisation and how he was a member of that organisation, but underlying it all is criticism. One can only take it as that. I am sure the Asian communities-in fact, I know the Asian communities and, in fact, a wide number of ethnic communities-are concerned at the attitude. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) can sit there and laugh and sit there and glow with a full head of steam, but the facts are that he made statements such as: 'We will make immigration an election issue'. We should look at the extreme position that has been put by these people. Incidentally in the very near future we will be able to name the printer of this document and the people who paid for it. We will expose those people and the people supporting this National Action group. What I am trying to say to the House is: If one looks at the views expressed by Ruxton and at the very slick racial attack that has been undertaken by a committee of this House on the Aboriginal Development Commission under the guise of some form of investigation into an Aboriginal body-the honourable member for Denison can screw up his nose- and if one puts it all together, one sees that it creates a very dangerous situation. That is all I am trying to say. There is Ruxton; inquiries built up about nothing into the Aboriginal Development Commission; criticisms of Charles Perkins; criticisms about Asian intakes; and criticisms about people from Central America coming into this country. This all feeds the ratbag elements which exist in our society and which promote this sort of material. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.59) —I am indeed delighted to see my colleague, the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), in the House because I told him earlier that I was going to say something about the subject of Sydney Airport in the Grievance Debate. He had been aware of that and was unable, I am sorry to say, to be in the House. I would have liked to have seen him then and to have heard from him. Now that he is here, perhaps I can ask him one or two questions directly. He has occupied this high position for more than 12 months. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I call the Minister for Aviation. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(11.00) —I am not quite certain what the honourable gentleman wished to ask me, but yes, I have been a Minister for 12 months. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The debate is interrupted. Unless the Minister makes a certain request the House will adjourn. Mr BEAZLEY —Mr Speaker, I ask that the debate be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may be extended until 11.10 p.m. Mr Spender —Thank you, Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney completely misunderstands. The provision of the Standing Orders is to allow an extension to allow the Minister to reply. I call the Minister for Aviation. Mr BEAZLEY —Perhaps I might actually get some time to address some of the points that have been made by the honourable member for North Sydney. I am not sure of the question he was going to ask me. He may have been wishing to confirm the fact that I have been a Minister for 12 months. I can confirm that for him. He did get that far in his speech. Yes, indeed, I have been the Minister for Aviation for 12 months. I will address first the points made by my colleague the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond), who was a little ungenerous in some of the things he had to say about the air fares introduced by the airlines offering new opportunities for Australian domestic tourists and, I think, opportunities that are in their extent unprecedented. The honourable member mentioned as the basis for his criticism-I take this criticism on board and, indeed, take it to heart-the fact that, if the traveller wishes to reach only one point, for example, Sydney from Perth, the fare is indeed higher than that offered under the flexi-fare system. The honourable member might have gone on to ask under whom the flexi-fares were introduced. The flexi-fares which are a 45 per cent discount-a very good discount indeed-were of course introduced after pressures on the part of this Government on the airlines to start to address that requirement. Indeed, the flexi-fares have worked far better between Western Australia and the eastern States than they have done between any combination of points elsewhere. That is because Western Australians have in their travel patterns established a pattern of frequently wishing to go to only one point in the eastern States and then start their travels by other means of transport or visit one point for business purposes. The flexi-fare works at its best on point to point travel. That is its major impact on fares over the longer distance. Of course, those distances are very great. Therefore, Western Australians have shown a markedly greater tendency to make use of that discount than any group of people elsewhere. I am quite delighted to take on board that criticism by the honourable member; but I do not think the point was worth making in the first place. The honourable member also raised a grievance of several of his colleagues. I shall certainly happily look into that grievance. The honourable member did not go on to talk about the other opportunity that I talked about in regard to the $ 800 fares which raise very considerable opportunities for savings. The example I cited at the time was the very substantial tourist opportunity to save an amount of $676. Honourable members have to remember that in the Western Australian context tourism goes both ways. I have found as a Western Australian over the years that our opportunities-it is a point we often complain about-to visit the eastern States have been heavily curtailed because of air fares and South East Asian destinations have proved more popular. The point about this new fare is that it will offer Western Australians an opportunity to see the eastern States at a reasonable price. This is an opportunity which, to this point of time, has been largely denied them, at least beyond one or two points under the flexi-fare . From that point of view to the Western Australian tourist the fare is very good. Again from the point of view of the person who wants to come into Western Australia, there are many combinations under the $800 fare, in particular, and some combinations under the $500 fare which will offer an opportunity for Western Australians to come to Perth. Western Australians know that the most normal mode of touring in the south west of Western Australia is not by air but by hire car or bus. Mr Shipton —Can you go to Albany? Mr BEAZLEY —There is almost no aviation infrastructure in the south west of Western Australia which, if the honourable member, were any sort of shadow tourist Minister, he would know something about. We are trying to improve that in our relationship with the Albany Town Council but we are not there yet. Mr Drummond —How can you go to Bunbury? Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member raises an interesting point. I will take that point on board and make some inquiries with the airlines on it. That was not the only example I gave of that fare possibility. The other examples I gave offered some considerable savings. The opportunity for eastern staters to get into Perth in a way in which they have not been able to do to this point, in addition to a substantial tour perhaps of the Northern Territory and South Australia at the same time, as will be possible under the $800 fare, will send them into an area where I think considerable opportunities for tourism abound. They abound in fact in most of the areas in the electorate of the honourable member for Forrest, both the wine areas and the towns in the south of Western Australia. They also abound in the electorate of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I have toured those areas frequently myself. I have never toured those areas in an aircraft, I have toured them by car, as has the honourable gentleman. When I was Special Minister of State I was not able to do the things for him that I ought to have been able to do in extending his mileage. He does not fly to Bunbury after he comes into Perth; he drives to Bunbury like everybody else. Of course, if there were an aircraft available for him to fly between Perth and Bunbury on anything like a regular basis the honourable member might have a very different attitude. I suggest that the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) pay us a visit and have a good look around at the south west because he will enjoy it immensely . He can be guaranteed a very good time. In his very valuable tour of that area he will not find a great deal of aviation infrastructure. He may, indeed, be able to suggest to us some ways in which we might improve the aviation services in the south west so we can do something about them. Neither I nor the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has ever suggested, firstly, that we have a directional power in relation to air fares. We do not. Secondly, we have never suggested that what has been presented is the be-all and end-all and that other opportunities ought not to be sought. We were invited by the honourable member for Forrest to address the possibility of ending the two airlines agreement. We will address that possibility. However, we will address it on the time frame selected for us by the honourable gentleman 's colleagues when they passed it through this Parliament. I am not sure but I think the honourable gentleman may have been an honourable exception in voting on that because a number of Western Australian Liberals were. Certainly, neither the honourable member for Higgins nor the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) were exceptions. They are both devotees of the regulatory arrangements that were introduced-- Mr Spender —Not devotees. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member was devotee enough to vote for them. I am not going to be wholly critical of those arrangements. I think certain features of the arrangements and the changes introduced at the time were good, including the Independent Air Fares Committee. I think it ought to have more powers as a consumer protection body than it has. Nevertheless, that was a step in the right direction. It was a step, nonetheless, which deprived myself and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism of any opportunity for any directional activity in relation to the operation of air fares to Western Australia. I invite the honourable gentleman to do what I shall be doing when we set up our review of the two airlines agreement and make submissions to the people who will be conducting that review when it gets into place in a reasonable time, to fit into the timetable set by his colleagues in the last Parliament. I ask him to raise the possibilities of Qantas Airways Ltd-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 March 1984: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report- Australia Council, report for 1982-83. Australian War Memorial, report for 1982-83. Museum of Australia, report for 1982-83. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1983- M1/83-Reporting of Sales (Meat for Export).* M2/83-Export of Chilled Sheep Meat.* M3/83-Compliance with Contract Specifications (Meat).* M4/83-Export of Chilled Beef and Chilled Veal to USA and Canada.* M5/83-Prohibition of Export of Bone-in Mutton Legs to Canada.* M6/83-Restrictions on Export of Meat and Meat Products: Slaughter at Registered Premises.* M7/83-Descriptions of Meat.* M8/83-Export of Chilled Goat Meat.* M9/83-Corporation's Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat.* M10/83-1983 Performance.* M12/83-1984 Performance.* MQ1/83-Buffalo Meat to EEC-1983 Export Control Scheme.* MQ2/83-High Quality Beef to EEC-1983 Control Scheme.* MQ3/83-Sheep Meat and Goat Meat to EEC (excluding France)-1983 Export Control Scheme.* MQ4/83-Meat to USA-1983 Export Control Scheme.* MQ5/83-Buffalo Meat to the EEC-1984 Export Control Scheme.* MQ6/83-High Quality Beef to EEC-1984 Control Scheme.* L1/83-Corporation's Form L: Live-stock.* L2/83-Compliance with Contract Specifications (Live-stock).* LM1/83-Corporation's Form L: Live-stock Corporation's Forms, 4, 9 and 10: Meat. * 1984- M16/84-Halal Certification. M17/84-Restrictions on Export of Meat and Meat Products: Slaughter at Registered Premises. M18/84-Export Documentation. M19/84-Corporation's Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat. MS5/84-Amendment of Contract Requirements-Shipping of Meat to East Coast and West Coast of North America and Gulf Ports, USA. (+ Orders remade as tabling of original orders of this title did not meet requirements of the Acts Interpretation Act). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 834) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Trade, 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 Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Committees in which the Minister's Department participates: (a) Inter-Departmental Committee of advising Departments on Purchasing Preference. (b) Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (c) Inter-Departmental Committee on Antarctica. (e) Inter-Departmental Committee on the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (f) The Inter-Departmental Committee on the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). (g) Inter-Departmental Committee on the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO). (h) Inter-Departmental Committee on Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (i) Inter-Departmental Committee on World Food Council (WFC). (j) Inter-Departmental Committee on World Food Program (WFP). (k) Inter-Departmental Committee on World Health Organisation (WHO). (l) Inter-Departmental Committee on United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). (m) Inter-Departmental Committee on International Narcotics Control Board (INCB ). (n) Inter-Departmental Committee on Overseas Information and Publicity Co- operation. (o) Inter-Departmental Committee on Information Policy. (p) Inter-Departmental Committee on Nuclear Safeguards. (q) Inter-Departmental Committee on Review of the Atomic Energy Act. (r) The Commonwealth Liaison Group on Raw Materials Processing. (s) The Overseas Property Committee. (t) Inter-Departmental Committee on Soviet Representation in Australia. (u) The Operational Committee on Conditions of Overseas Service. (v) The Policy Committee on Conditions of Overseas Service. (w) Inter-Departmental Working Group on Australia-China relations. (x) Standing Committee on Japan. (y) Inter-Departmental Working Group on the Koreas. (z) Sub-Committee on Foreign Fishing Proposals. (aa) Inter-Departmental Committee on Australia's relations with ASEAN. (ab) Offsets Inter-Departmental Committee. (ac) Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Liaison Monitoring Committee. (ad) Office Systems Project. (ae) Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on North-South issues. (af) Inter-Departmental Committee on Western economic summits. (ag) Antitrust IDC. 2. Committees which the Minister's Department Chairs: (a) Name: Inter-Departmental Committee on the Common Fund for Commodities. Subject Matter: To consider Australia's approach to the Common Fund. (b) Name: Standing Committee on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Subject Matter: To consider Australia's approach to UNCTAD meetings and issues as they arise. (c) Name: Ad hoc Inter-Departmental Committees on the ESCAP Trade Consultative Group (TCG) and its sub-groups. Subject Matter: To consider Australia's approach to ESCAP TCG meetings and issues as they arise. (d) Name: Joint Department of Trade/Department of Transport Task Force on Shipping. Subject Matter: To examine the effect of shipping upon Australia's balance of payments. (e) Name: Inter-Departmental Committee on Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (National interest cases). Subject Matter: Advise the Minister for Trade on applications by exporters for support under the national interest provisions of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974. (f) Name: Inter-Departmental Committee to consider applications from professional consultants for financial assistance from the Consulting Services Feasibility Fund. Subject Matter: To assist consultants to establish a track record overseas and become involved in the preparatory stage of development projects in developing countries in circumstances that are likely to generate opportunities for follow- on work for Australian consultants, contractors and/or equipment suppliers. (g) Name: International Trade Development Centre Management Committee. Subject Matter: To manage the International Trade Development Centre (Sydney, Melbourne) program of trade assistance to developing countries. (Question No. 1028) Dr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: Has the Government been involved in deliberation or discussions concerning the feasibility of use of nuclear power for desalination to ease Australia's water shortage; if so, what stage have these considerations reached. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Neither the Department of Resources and Energy nor the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has been involved in any such discussions. (Question No. 1151) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: In each financial year since the inception of the (a) export market development grants schemes for (i) goods, services, et cetera, and (ii) tourist services and (b) export expansion grants scheme, which organisations or persons received grants, and for what value (a) in the electoral division of Wakefield and (b) for horticultural and relating industries throughout Australia. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Export Development Grants Board determines grants under the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978. The export expansion grants scheme was allowed to lapse on 30 June 1983. Details of recipients and the amounts of the grants provided are included in the Board's annual reports. The 1982-83 Report was tabled in the House on 29 November 1983. The Board neither records nor has the facilities to record grants received by organisations or persons in a particular electoral division or a particular industry. Mr Barry Jones —On 2 March 1984 (Hansard, page 413) Mr Hand asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question without notice concerning nuclear waste in Australia and I undertook to provide further information on the quantities of waste currently being stored. The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The quantities of the various types of radioactive wastes stored at the Research Establishment of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights are as follows: (a) 510 m3 of low level solid wastes consisting mainly of slightly contaminated trash and dried sludge resulting from the treatment of liquid waste. This material is stored in buildings and most of it is or will be compacted into 200 litre plastic lined steel drums (b) 136.7 m3 of more highly radioactive solid waste from reactor operation, radiopharmaceutical production and experimental work, stored in concrete lined pits excavated in sandstone and water-proofed with a bituminous membrane (c) 2.87 m3 of liquid wastes, mainly from radiopharmaceutical production, contained in a special facility which includes shielded tanks. Small amounts of radioactive waste are held in storage by other Commonwealth and State authorites; it is estimated that the total volumes held are in the order of 10 m3 and 20 m3 respectively. This waste has low to medium levels of radioactivity and includes material accepted for disposal from hospitals, research institutions and industry; it consists of, for example, surplus radiation sources, contaminated laboratory equipment, radiovalves and luminising paint. These quantities do not include low level wastes arising from industrial processes such as uranium mining and milling and processing of mineral sands. The low level wastes currently in storage are considered to be suitable for disposal by shallow ground burial when a suitable site is available. Higher level wastes, after conditioning including solidification of liquid waste, would be suitable for disposal to a national repository. The question of waste disposal has been under joint review by Commonwealth and State officials. In addition, wastes contaminated with low amounts of radioactivity and toxic chemicals were buried on AAEC land adjacent to Lucas Heights between 1960 and 1968, and contaminated furnace waste from Singapore was buried near Kambalda in 1981.