Thursday, 5 April 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cross,Mr Drummond,Mr Groom 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 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 and Mr Groom. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique inherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia, firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characterstics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We 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. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore 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 Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth. That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we object most strongly to the present Medicare system as it operates today, because despite being covered by both private insurance and Medicare, we are not fully covered and have to pay the excess portion of medical and hospital accounts. We would request that immediate action be taken to have the excess portion reimbursed by our private insurance funds. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Patersons Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Patersons Curse And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the electors of the divisions of Corio and Corangamite respectfully showeth that the population of the Geelong Region is approximately 170,000 persons and yet Geelong does not have a true regional airport capable of receiving regularly scheduled commercial aircraft. It is our understanding that no other city in Australia having a population exceeding 12,000 persons is similarly disadvantaged. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that regularly scheduled commercial aircraft be permitted to use Avalon Airfield for the carriage of passengers and freight to and from the Geelong Region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Forrest respectfully showeth that the Australian Citizenship Act contains provision for the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors: That the said Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained; and would strongly oppose any attempt to remove all reference to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance, and any attempt to remove all reference to the Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance.. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. Petitions received. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the seriousness of the housing crisis in the ACT where rentals have sky-rocketed and land and housing prices have outstripped the capacity of Canberra's young people to afford their own home; (2) condemns the Government for its failure to address the root cause of the problem, namely ensuring an adequate supply of serviced land at reasonable prices; (3) endorses the call of the Government's own Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry in its March 1984 Report, for adoption of one-off private sector development schemes to increase serviced land by as much as 20%; (4) regrets the failure of the Minister for Territories and Local Government to lead by example by ensuring that one more Government flat, namely that occupied by him in Kingston at $58 per week, is made available for occupation by one of the priority wait-listed applicants in the Australian Capital Territory for welfare housing, and (5) notes the challenge to the Government's credibility if this situation is not immediately addressed, either by action on the Government's part or by debate. I advise the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) that I am ready to debate that matter immediately if he wishes. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) will second: That this House- (1) notes that the level of support for the National Party in New South Wales has reached its lowest level since the formation of the Country Party more than 70 years ago; (2) acknowledges that the Australian Labor Party has the strongest support of all the major parties in country New South Wales; and (3) congratulates the new member for Murrumbidgee, Mrs Peggy Delves, on her outstanding success, which has further reinforced the lack-lustre performance of the Nationals in New South Wales. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern at the decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to index wages by the full 4.1 per cent; (2) acknowledges the economy is making a patchy recovery but also recognises job-creation/investment is low; (3) draws to the attention of the Government and union leaders that the increase will reduce job opportunities and in marginally profitable industries will create retrenchments; (4) resolves that the retention of the existing jobs is more significant than taxpayer-funded 'make-work' programs; and (5) calls on the Government to allow employees and employers, where it is mutually agreed, to enter agreements which reject the wage rise. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that on Sunday, 15 April 1984, in cities throughout Australia, hundreds of thousands of Australians will show their concern for world peace and disarmament by marching for peace in city streets; (b) that these peace rallies are a loud call to the leaders of this country and world leaders for nuclear disarmament; (c) that the peace groups such as People for Nuclear Disarmament, the Movement Against Uranium Mining, Friends of the Earth, Pax Christ, Campaign for International Co-operation and Disarmament, and Scientists Against Nuclear Arms are ordinary Australians, deeply concerned for the future of humanity; and (d) throughout Australia, peace week activities will be going on in many schools, clubs and organisations; and (2) urges all Australians to participate in these activities in the interests of world peace and disarmament. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that the Government intends to remove barriers that in future will allow the importation and promotion of pornographic material that deals in urolagnia, coprophilia and necrophilia; (2) expresses its amazement that, in the same revision of laws, the Government has decided to approve publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls- (a) that in December 1983, the Government, in a joint statement by the Minister for Science and Technology, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Attorney-General, recognised the critical threat to the Australian software industry, and the computer industry generally, of Judge Beaumont's decision that computer software is not protected by law from being copied, and (b) that in that statement the Government promised prompt legislative action to remedy the situation, and thus afford the necessary support for this burgeoning high technology industry the Minister for Science and Technology talks so much about, and (2) condemns the Government in that it is now April and there is still no sign of the prompt action promised in December 1983. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before I call for any further notices of motion, I once more remind honourable members that notices of motion must give notice of a substantive motion and should not contain argument. A practice seems to be growing of argument being included in the notices. I am sure that if this continues the House will have some problems. I ask honourable members to think about that when drawing up their notices. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that 5 April 1984 marks the eighth week of the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) strike on the New Parliament House project, and (2) demands to know from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations- (a) the increase to the Parliament House Construction Authority in the cost of purchasing the 11 giant mobile cranes on the job; (b) whether the 780 workers that were on the job will be paid the 6 weeks severance pay per year over 7 years of the project they demand at the cost of a year's salary on average, or a 12 1/2% increase in wages; (c) whether all other construction sites in Canberra are being levied by the BLF to pay the wages of the 40 pickets on the Parliament House site; (d) whether the Government is to pay the $2 per week site allowance demanded, and (e) what is the projected cost to the taxpayers of Australia of the strike clause in the contract written for the job by the Construction Authority. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Queensland and Northern Territory Governments to release without further delay the report of the study of the Mount Isa to Darwin rail link. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the Government's attacks on the conditions of service of men and women serving in the Australian defence forces, in particular- (a) the imposition of new conditions on retirement arrangements reducing members' retirement benefits, and (b) the imposition of a Medicare levy on members who have working wives, and (2) condemns the Government for its unfeeling and unfair assault on members of the defence forces. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Government has forced the Commonwealth Development Bank to transfer $75 million from its reserves; (b) the Government's small business policy stated that the Government would expand the capital base of the Commonwealth Development Bank, and (c) the Government has broken another promise to small business, and (2) calls on the Government to recognise the importance of the small business sector in the Australian economy and put in place policies to make finance competitively available for small business. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House condemns the Government for attempting to hoodwink the people of Australia by pretending that the pension assets test has been dropped when key Government departments continue, with the approal of Ministers, to make administrative decisions on the assumption that the assets test as previously proposed will become a reality during the 1984-85 financial year. Mr HODGMAN(Dension) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House castigates the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for wrongly claiming that Australia does not have discriminatory immigration policies and, in particular, for not informing the House of both positive and negative discrimination in relation to British and European migration, Asian migration, New Zealand migration, Lebanese and Cypriot refugees and the Government's shameful attitude to, and treatment of, such worthy community organisations as the Good Neighbour Council and the Big Brother movement. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the success of Paul Hogan's tourist promotion campaign on the US west coast and assures him of the support of both sides of this House, and (b) that Government policies, however, are making his task more difficult, namely- (i) the 11 per cent gap in the recent CPI figures between the cost of travelling overseas and travelling in Australia; (ii) the failure of the recently announced inbound discount fares for overseas tourists to provide real benefits, and (iii) the blow struck on the Japanese tourist market by the new fares making it more expensive to travel to and within Australia than under the previous fare structure, and (2) calls on the Government to support Paul Hogan's campaign by real, and not illusionary, actions and to actually reduce the cost of travelling within and to Australia. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises that- (a) the Fraser Government dropped the assets test on pensions in 1976; and (b) the assets test and means test are traditionally part of the present pension system; and (c) calls on the Government to implement a national superannuation fund to instil fairness in the present retirement system. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House resolves that the present and any future House of Representatives Chamber shall not be used for any meetings other than meetings of elected Members of this House, sitting as the House of Representatives or as a properly constituted Committee of the House unless expressly authorised by a special resolution of the House. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) will second: That this House- (1) notes the continuing successful operation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park agreement, in particular that the whole of the Great Barrier Reef is now within the Marine Park; and (2) congratulates the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for his effective action to preserve the reef, which is part of Australia's heritage as well as one of the wonders of the world. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the Government's disgraceful policy of attempting to upgrade tiny, fibro, sub-standard Army married quarters; (b) that under this policy work on each house in the program costs approximately $30, 000 plus or 75 per cent of the cost of a new house; (c) that houses that are upgraded in this program will require major repair and maintenance in 3 of 4 years; and (d) that this work is carried out against the advice of Army engineers; (2) condemns the Government for the scandalous waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money; and (3) calls on the Government to terminate the program and use the money saved towards building new houses instead. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the delays created by the Minister for Aviation in solving the airport problems of Sydney; (2) reiterates its support for the consistent concern expressed by the honourable members for Farrer, North Sydney, Mitchell, Chifley, Macquarie, Dundas and Berowra; (3) condemns the Minister for making a series of misleading statements on dates for announcing a final decision on Sydney's airport needs; and (4) calls on the Minister to make an immediate decision, a decision promised months ago, to put a stop to the worry, community stress, and loss of equity in property created by his equivocation and procrastination. Mr Gorman-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I was not a party to that notice of motion. Therefore, I would like reference to my electorate of Chifley excluded from that notice of motion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Debate resumed from 3 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.20) —This Bill, the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No.1) 1984, proposes amendments to the Companies Act 1981, to the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980 and to the Securities Industry Act 1980. The Bill, as is characteristic of amendments which come to the package of legislation which we have come to call the 'securities industry package', contains some amendments of a highly technical nature and other amendments of a more broad character, including in this case amendments of a very broad character which relate to the operation of the stock exchanges throughout this country. We all know that under the scheme that has been set up on a co-operative basis between the States and the Commonwealth once a legislative package gets to these Houses it is virtually unamendable. The present package has been passed by the Senate and in general terms we support the Bill which is now before the House. That support is subject to one question or qualification which relates to the subject of time-sharing agreements. That is something which I will come to and explain in a little detail so that the responsible Minister-I thought the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) would be presenting the Government's response to the House-can explain to the House a problem which appears to arise out of the width of a definition given to time-sharing agreements. It may be convenient, since I have raised the problem, rather than returning to it at a later stage, to go directly to it now. Even though the Deputy Prime Minister is not in the chamber I trust that his advisers are, that they will take a note of what I am going to say, that they will relay the note to him and that he will be able then to relay back to this House the note that he is given by them to pass back to the House. It is effectively a conduit pipe and I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister gets here to act as a conduit. The question that arises is in relation to the desire of the Government to catch time-sharing agreements within the provisions of the legislation which relate to the offering of prescribed interests. As the Deputy Prime Minister said in his second reading speech to the House: 'Prescribed interests' is a wide net which catches most profit making schemes and investment schemes marketed to the public. Examples of other types of schemes which are or have been liable to be regulated in the same manner- in the same manner as is now proposed in relation to time-sharing schemes- include property trusts, franchises, various plantation schemes, horse-racing syndicates and retirement villages. He went on to say: The purpose of the proposed amendments to the definition of prescribed interest in both the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act . . . is to ensure that all time-sharing schemes will continue to be regulated under the prescribed interest provisions, notwithstanding that in some cases the investment in question is structured by reference to rights attaching to shares in a corporation. I do not think we need go again into the detail as to the technical reasons why the definition is needed. It is needed to overcome, in effect, doubts that have arisen as a result of a decision in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It is of particular interest to the Government-this has been made clear by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the Senate-that resort-sharing arrangements are brought within the time-sharing provisions. It is said in the explanatory memorandum at page 13 in dealing with this subject: It is proposed that this approach- that is, to catch what we are concerned with- be adopted in respect of the promotion of interests in 'time-sharing' developments in which the use or ownership of property is divided amongst a number of people by reference to a specified period of time (typically, the use of holiday resort facilities for a number of weeks each year). What is intended, therefore, is to enlarge the definition of prescribed interest in the companies and securities industries legislation. Therefore, that prescribed interest would include any right to participate in a time-sharing scheme. A time-sharing scheme is defined for that purpose as meaning: . . . a scheme, undertaking or enterprise- (a) participants in which are, or may become, entitled to use, occupy or possess, for two or more periods during the period for which the scheme, undertaking or enterprise is to operate, property to which the scheme, undertaking or enterprise relates; and (b) that is to operate for a period of not less than three years; . . . Therefore we have the two components in relation to the scheme, undertaking or enterprise. Firstly, the participants are, or may become, entitled to use or occupy certain premises for two or more periods during the period of the scheme. Secondly, the scheme, undertaking or enterprise is to operate for a period of not less than three years. The importance of that is that where a person wished to offer a prescribed interest for sale that person would need to look at the operation of section 169 of the Companies Act. That section provides: A person, other than a company or an agent of a company authorised for that purpose under the common or official seal of the company, shall not issue to the public, offer to the public for subscription or purchase, or invite the public to subscribe for or purchase, any prescribed interest. That is the prohibition. Secondly, section 170 of the Companies Act provides: (1) A company or an agent of a company shall not issue to the public, offer to the public for subscription or purchase, or invite the public to subscribe for or purchase, any prescribed interest unless the issue, offer or invitation is by means of a statement in writing. The section then goes on to describe that that shall be 'a prospectus issued by a company'. That then of course attracts the operation of conditions which require certain prescribed information to be furnished. The question has been raised by an organisation which calls itself the Australian Time Sharing Resort Council as to whether the proposed definition is too wide. At this point I mention that I am glad to see the Deputy Prime Minister in the House. It is always good to see him here. This is a technical subject. It will take a little time for us to get through it. What the Time Sharing Resort Council has raised-I have no view about the business of the Council one way or another; indeed, I do not really know what it does but I understand that it is interested in time sharing operations-is whether the definition in the Bill is too wide and might apply, for example, to such matters as contracts for the use of public entertainment or sporting facilities. I instance a football ground used on Saturdays for three years or computer sharing contracts and other matters. That matter was raised very directly by Senator Durack in another place. As I said earlier, I raise the point at this stage so that when we get to the Committee stage the Deputy Prime Minister will be in a position to give an answer to this question as to the apparent width of the definition of time-sharing schemes. The Attorney-General said in the Senate on 3 April: The more particular matter that Senator Durack raised concerned the effectiveness of the definition of time sharing to confine its operation to what it is manifestly intended to cover, and that is the marketing of time-sharing arrangements in the context essentially of resort accommodation, which is the area in which time-sharing schemes have become most familiar. The Attorney-General said with his characteristic confidence that that is what the definition is intended to cover. The question obviously arises: Has the definition, in fact, achieved that or has it achieved something far wider? He went on to say: The criticism is that the definition of time sharing has been expressed so broadly that it might inadvertently catch a variety of investment schemes or activities other than time-sharing activities strictly so called. This is something which the Government will have another look at, as Senator Durack invites us to do, in the period between this debate and that in the House of Representatives to ensure that we really have done the best we can so far as this definition is concerned. One can assume only that that undertaking, having been given to the Senate, has been fulfilled, that Senator Evans has looked at this question further and that we will have a detailed response on the subject by the Deputy Prime Minister. So that he is not caught by surprise, let me also say that Senator Evans, again in the Senate on 3 April, reverting to the operation of the definition of time sharing, said: The other more general point to make not only about that but also about all the other examples that are given-public entertainment, sporting facilities, computer sharing contracts, hotel or permanent accommodation agreements and so on-is that the difficulty about all of these things is that they ignore one of the central elements in the definition of prescribed interest in the parent Act, section 169 of the Australian Companies Code, which makes it clear that what we are talking about here are schemes which are offered to the public, and something which is in the nature of a scheme. I think that Senator Evans has somewhat confused matters. The prescribed interest provisions define certain matters. Section 169 prohibits certain transactions. Senator Evans appears not to have understood that or somehow-and it is very difficult to see how-to have confused the two because, as I say, he said: . . . the central elements in the definition of prescribed interest in the parent Act, section 169 . . . The parent Act does not define prescribed interests. That is to say, section 169 has nothing to do with defining prescribed interests. It fixes on what may be done in relation to prescribed interests. I raise that question so that the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to respond. It would be perfectly ludicrous if a football field which was to be offered out on a time-sharing basis for a period of more than three years were to be caught by the width of the definition which was intended, as Senator Evans says-and he, after all, should know what was in the Government's mind-to attach to resort-sharing operations and perhaps to operations of an allied kind. I have taken some time on this question because it is most important when legislation of this kind is before the House that, in seeking to attach consequences to specific matters, the operation of the legislation does not go beyond what is intended and attach consequences to matters which it really did not intend to touch. The amendments which have been introduced today also touch on a number of matters. As I have indicated, some are of a very technical nature, such as those made in relation to charges. Others have great significance for the Australian investment community. It is a great pity, therefore, that this legislation has been rushed through in the way in which it has. It was before the Senate last week. The Bill may have been available for a week or so before then. As far as I am aware, no exposure draft of the Bill has been presented to the Australian public so that interested parties could comment on it. That is particularly unfortunate because, in part of the Bill-the part which will have the most wide- ranging effect-we are dealing with amendments which will change the nature of the stockbroking industry in this country. All honourable members will know that in our community the main way of raising funds for private investment is through the mechanism of the stock market. That is a characteristic of the capitalist system which allows people to pool money and for the pooled money to be used for general or specific investment purposes. It is worth while going over briefly some of the history leading up to the amendments now before the House which affect stockbroking activities in this country. It started, I think, around 1974 when, after the introduction of the Trade Practices Act, the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges were put on notice that their practices in relation to the fixing of brokerage rates and restrictions of membership contravened the Trade Practices Act. Authorisation was then obtained for those practices. The introduction of the Act raised the issue of whether exchanges could restrict membership or fix charges. Of course, outside groups, especially merchant banks and overseas financiers, were anxious to open up the market. I think most people would agree that opening up the market usually works to the benefit of the consumer and to the community at large. Debate went on over a number of years. In 1975 preliminary discussions were held on the introduction of the national companies and securities scheme. At that time the broking industry perceived that under a national companies scheme it would be possible simultaneously to open up the market to competition. In July 1981 a group of Australian merchant bankers brought mandamus proceedings against the Trade Practices Commission. These proceedings would force the Commission to exercise powers, claimed by the Australian merchant bankers to reside in the Commission, to examine the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges' rules and articles of association. That case was settled on the basis of undertakings given by the Commission and in July 1981 an examination began. Findings were issued by the Trade Practices Commission in September 1982. It refused authorisation for the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges' rules, but granted interim authorisation for 18 months to enable amendments to be made. On 6 March 1984 the Trade Practices Commission granted interim authorisation to new draft rules and articles of association for stock exchanges. These new draft rules are of great importance to all who believe that the stock exchange was too much of a closed shop, that it needed to be opened up and that there should be greater flexibility in the fixing of fees charged on transactions effected through an exchange. In summary, the major changes made were, firstly, the allowance of 50 per cent outside ownership of broking firms, something which will assist broking firms in raising capital; secondly, incorporation of broking partnerships; thirdly, a freeing of restrictions on exchange membership to allow broking firms to trade on and be members of more than one exchange, that is, to be members of more than one of the six exchanges in Australia; fourthly, to allow outside non-broker directors to be directors of member corporations; and fifthly, the negotiation of rates for all transactions over $100,000. These changes came into effect from 1 April 1984. This does not mean to say that we do not need to do anything more or, perhaps more properly, that the broking community does not need to do anything more. When one is involved in any attempt to open up an industry, there is a great temptation to open up that industry by regulating it out of existence . It is always better for industries to propose means by which they will free up restrictive practices, rather than having government step in and do the work for them, with all the consequences in terms of restrictions, bureaucratic interference and general intervention that that process involves. There are a number of outstanding matters, such as conflict of interest problems. When stockbroker firms are incorporated, there is of course potential for complaints that shareholders or directors may be treated differently from ordinary clients. The brokers propose, I understand, to put up a so-called Chinese wall around broking firms' operations so that non-broking personnel do not become privy to sensitive information. This kind of Chinese wall, if my recollection is correct, does occur in firms in the City of London when it is desired to keep certain transactions isolated from the general knowledge of all the personnel in a firm. It is possible to do that, but it does present obvious and real difficulties. There is a question as to whether corporate members should pay higher entry fees than individual members, and that is yet to be decided. A question arises in respect of fidelity funds. Since the new rules enable a broker to be a member of more than one exchange, this immediately raises the question of whether the present approach in the legislation in relation to fidelity funds is apt. At present, fidelity fund regulations are premised on brokers being members of only one exchange, and each exchange has its own fidelity fund. Should we continue with the arrangement that each exchange should have its own fidelity fund? Should we have in place of that arrangement a fidelity fund for the whole of Australia? Or is there to be some compromise between those two alternatives? There are, therefore, a number of major matters still in the air. In addition to the ones I have mentioned, I should touch as well on the question of the Foreign Investment Review Board regulation of membership of brokerage firms by financial institutions. In particular, of course, local and overseas organisations want to know at the inception of the scheme whether the Government will allow overseas participation. This is something on which the Government should have had a view before the amending legislation was introduced, because it is most important at the outset to be able to state clearly to the investing community what the rules and guidelines will be under this legislation. Another matter which is in the air is the question of a decision as to what requirements and fees will be placed upon companies seeking to acquire membership of the exchange. There are other matters as well but, in summary, the move towards deregulation of the broking industry is a move in the right direction. It has come from within the broking industry. It was supported from within the previous Government and, had it been returned to power, which unfortunately due to the vagaries of the election it was not, it would no doubt be implementing this legislation-but, I hope, with a very much clearer statement of future purpose and with greater clarity on such important matters as whether or not overseas financial institutions are to be allowed to participate in the Australian stock market through participation in incorporated broking organisations. There are, as I have said, other technical matters which are dealt with in the legislation. I do not think it is useful or necessary to address those questions . They have been addressed in the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech. Subject to the question that the Opposition has raised concerning the application or ambit of the definition of 'time-sharing arrangements', it supports the Bill. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.47) —The Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 1) which is before the House today involves a number of amendments to the companies and securities legislation of our nation. The areas being dealt with are somewhat esoteric but I believe quite important and practical. The first section that I want to touch on, which has been canvassed by other speakers in the debate, is the notion of time-sharing. It is a new concept and is more easily understood if one thinks of the letting of ski lodges , although I believe it relates essentially to holiday premises. A purchaser may buy a parcel of shares in a holiday lodge or holiday flat and have certain rights to use it at certain times of the year. It is a new concept, but I think it is one that has quite wide community implications. The legislation provides that if time-sharing is being regulated under prescribed interest provisions, which is the technical term, there will be a certain number of safeguards for any person who buys shares and proposes to use the property for a certain number of weeks each year. There are many groups in the community, including voluntary groups and non-profit organisations, which wish to share properties. Of course in another age these groups were catered for by using local working men's institutes, schools of arts or mechanics institutes , but in most country or suburban areas these buildings have either disappeared or fallen into disuse. Their use was regulated under State Acts. Legislation has always provided for schools of arts activities and other such community activities. However, since the Whitlam period of government, we have had a great mushrooming of community pre-schools, community centres and community health centres. There are many groups wishing to use and share such centres. (Quorum formed) The most important section of this legislation is the new concept of time- sharing. It relates to companies and is particularly relevant, as I said earlier , to people who wish to obtain the right to use a ski lodge, a holiday cottage or a holiday flat for certain periods of the year. It is essentially part of a prescribed interest scheme. The prescribed interest is defined in the legislation. I will not go into more detail on that, but I think this will be a very relevant form of sharing property-local halls, meeting rooms and the like- by community groups. In my area I have found that Commonwealth funded pre-schools have become incorporated as community centres and pre-school centres either as a co- operative under a State co-operative Act or as a company limited by guarantee. This form of incorporation of a company is available to a charity and is quite common. I am sure that many honourable members are involved with local community centres which are being established and are concerned about the form of establishment and structure that the centre should adopt. I feel this legislation will be widely accepted throughout the community when it is known because it guarantees to the different groups which share a community centre that they can use that centre for their meetings on certain defined days in each month. I imagine it could be used by even a political party , the local Red Cross Society or any voluntary or school groups. It essentially involves setting up a company limited by guarantee to run a community centre. Each group which will use the centre will buy its shareholdings and have an inalienable right to use that community centre on certain days or nights of the week. There is a proposal in Drummoyne for the council to build a community centre to be shared between the local community group and the Second Drummoyne Scouts. This system of time-sharing under a prescribed scheme would be ideal for ironing out difficulties which could arise. These two groups could use the centre-the scouts could have certain access. That is the purpose of the legislation. This legislation arose out of difficulties in a case in the New South Wales Supreme Court, Brentwood's case. Brentwood Village created certain worries and doubts about the whole matter. I see great usefulness in time-sharing in the ski lodges that are so important in the States for tourism, in the Snowy mountains at Thredbo and Perisher, and in Victoria, and also in the holiday industry. The nature of time-sharing and the rights of shareholders in companies who wish just to have this limited interest are being clarified. It will not be a lease or a licence; it will be a time-sharing arrangement. The second part of the legislation deals with various changes to the companies legislation concerning registration of charges. It removes some of the worries about registration in the various States. However, I notice that in the second reading speech of the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in this House, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), he said that no crop lien, wool lien or stock mortgage had been registered in the Australian Capital Territory since 1979, so this legislation merely clarifies the present de facto position in relation to the registration of all these country interests . This legislation is, therefore, of some importance to Australia's rural sector . The third part of the legislation deals with the regulation of stock exchanges in Australia. It is particularly relevant to a stockbroking firm which operates in several States. This is tied in with the problem of fidelity funds. It is of great importance to the ordinary citizen who wishes to buy shares, and perhaps to trade in shares. It is essential that the situation with the fidelity fund is clarified. It is a tragedy that there is a need for such funds but it is essential that there be a guarantee. If money is paid to a professional person, a solicitor, stockbroker, real estate agent or whatever, it is essential that the client is protected. If unfortunately, as happens from time to time, money is stolen, either by a member of the stock exchange or by an employee, there is some guarantee that the investor or the client will receive compensation eventually or all moneys missing will eventually be repaid. I notice that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the need for, perhaps, a national fidelity fund covering the whole nation. As it is now, with a stockbroking firm registering in New South Wales and Victoria, there are problems and doubts about whether there should be contributions to both fidelity funds. That is what this section of the legislation is aimed at sorting out and resolving. The other clauses of the legislation are essentially related and ancillary. I shall not delay the House further. I commend the Bill to the House. It arises out of the joint consultation on the companies and securities legislation throughout Australia, and the amendments have been recommended by the meetings of Attorneys-General in our nation. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.59) —The Companies and Securities Legislation ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No.1) makes amendments to three Commonwealth Acts pursuant to the co-operative companies and securities scheme, that scheme being, as the House will be well aware, a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and the States executed on 22 December 1978. The agreement provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth-State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration in relation to company law and the regulation of the securities industry in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. That formal agreement, among other things, established a Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, comprising Ministers of the Commonwealth and of each of the six States. In accordance with the co-operative scheme, this Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council. The Bill contains a range of complex amendments. Firstly, it contains amendments defining and allowing for the registration of persons participating in time-sharing agreements. Secondly, it contains amendments altering the law controlling the registration of charges to overcome specific problems that have arisen. Thirdly, it contains amendments consequential upon the deregulation of the six Australian stock exchanges as from 1 April 1984. My colleagues the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) have dealt with a number of aspects relating to time-sharing arrangements. (Quorum formed) The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) was totally justified in calling a quorum in order to bring this important legislation to the Government's attention. If my memory serves me correctly, there were but four Government members in the chamber when the quorum was called. The main thrust of this legislation is to deregulate the stock exchange industry. This Government is only slightly concerned with that most important aspect of our economy. I realise that the legislation is somewhat complex and is beyond the understanding of most members of the Government. Whilst it is complex , more members of the Government ought to show an interest, as members of the Opposition do, in this important aspect of the behaviour of stock exchanges. As I said before the quorum was called, the honourable member for North Sydney dealt with the Opposition's concern relating to time-sharing arrangements, and there is no need for me to cover that ground again. I wish instead to concentrate on the deregulation aspects of this legislation. This legislation will prevent the fixing of brokerage rates. It will permit corporate membership and allow non-members to own up to 50 per cent of a stockbroking firm. The advantages of deregulation are self-evident but need to be spelt out for those members of the Government who take no interest in this area. First and foremost, deregulation will provide greater competition, lead to more efficiency in the behaviour of stock exchanges and ultimately provide a greater and better service for investors. This is in line with the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. I notice that the Government is at present considering the report of the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System which was set up to examine certain aspects of the Campbell report. Today's Press reports indicate that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) are to meet with the entire grouping of the Left. I understand that that meeting will take place in a very small room, if not in a telephone box. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have deigned to meet with that phoenix rising out of the ashes which we affectionately term the Left. Those two gentlemen will try to persuade the Left that the Martin report will be beneficial to the private sector. I suspect that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will meet a united opposition to that position because the Left has not the slightest concern about, and in fact has a great antipathy towards, the private sector. Regrettably, this Government, particularly the Treasurer, is persuaded by those views and accepts the proposition of the left that it is the public sector which can best lead to economic recovery in this country. The Opposition rejects that out of hand. The stimulation of the private sector will best provide sustained economic growth which will lead to the creation of employment, and that is the first concern of the Opposition. The deregulation aspects of the stock exchange legislation have a long and very interesting history. When the Trade Practices Act was introduced in 1974 the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges was put on notice that its restrictive practices relating, firstly, to the fixing of brokerage rates and, secondly, to restrictions on membership of exchanges would contravene the Act. Therefore, the Associated Stock Exchanges sought and obtained from the Trade Practices Commission authorisation for those practices. The Trade Practices Commission granted that authorisation but made it very clear to the Associated Stock Exchanges that that authorisation was finite and that a number of its housekeeping aspects would have to be put in order. The introduction of the Trade Practices Act, interestingly, raised the issue of whether exchanges could restrict membership or fix charges. Outside groups, as the honourable member for North Sydney stated earlier in this debate, were very anxious to open up the market. I refer particularly to merchant banks and overseas financiers. One of the difficulties was that the securities industry legislation for each State contemplated an industry of individual brokers and not corporations. The debate quickly gathered pace from the introduction of the Trade Practices Act in 1974 and from 1975 onwards discussions took place as to the introduction of a national companies and securities scheme. The broking industry believed, quite correctly, that a national companies scheme would provide the best oportunity to open the market to corporations. The next major stage in the development of the deregulation of the stock exchange industry occurred when a group of Australian merchant bankers in July 1981 brought mandamus proceedings against the Trade Practices Commission to force the Commission to examine the Associated Stock Exchanges' rules and articles of association. That case, brought by the Australian merchant bankers, was settled on the basis of undertakings given by the Commission to examine the Associated Stock Exchanges' rules and articles of association. The next stage was when the Trade Practices Commission, in Septemer 1982, issued the findings of its examination. The findings were that the Trade Practices Commission, firstly, refused authorisation for the Associated Stock Exchanges' rules but, secondly, granted interim authorisation for 18 months to enable amendments to be made. We are now at that stage. On 6 March 1984 the Trade Practices Commission granted interim authorisation to draft rules and articles of association for exchanges which will allow-these are important to note-the following: Fifty per cent outside ownership of broking firms; incorporation of broking partnerships; a freeing of restrictions on exchange memberships to permit broking firms to trade and to be members of more than one exchange; outside-that is, non-broker-directors of member corporations; and, finally, negotiated rates for all transactions over $100,000. These charges took effect from 1 April 1984. However, a large number of problems are still outstanding in regard to the stock exchange industry. There is, for instance, the problem of conflicts of interest. This occurs, or may be seen to have occurred, with the incorporation of stock broking firms because there is a great potential for complaints by shareholders that directors or other persons are treated differently from clients or are able to obtain secret information concerning clients' activities. That is a perfectly reasonable concern by clients of stock broking firms and it is one which the Government will have to address. There are other problems which the Government will have to address. For example , the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges recommended the retention of the existing rule which requires all deals of less than $500,000 to be made on the floor of the exchange. In addition, there is a problem of whether corporate members should pay higher entry fees than individual members. As the honourable member for North Sydney said, there is a further problem in regard to fidelity funds. The new rules are said to enable a broker to be a member of more than one stock exchange. I realise that I have touched on some complex matters and foreshadowed further complex matters which will have to come before this House. The concern of the Opposition is that the Government has an ad hoc approach in regard to deregulation of the stock exchange industry. We are also concerned that this legislation was rushed through the Senate and is now being rushed through the House of Representatives. The legislation was debated in the Senate on 3 April 1984 and, as I understand it, the Bill was available for discussion and perusal in the last week of March. That is simply not sufficient time to permit the industry and other interested persons to consider carefully each of the provisions of the legislation so that they can have some further input into discussion on these matters. In other words, I believe that the Government has at the last minute taken a slap-dash type of approach in regard to this legislation. After all, as I have outlined, these changes have been mooted and considered publicly since 1982 when the Trade Practices Commission issued its findings into its inquiry into the rules and articles of association of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges. As I said, they were approved by the Trade Practices Commission on 6 March 1984. For that reason, I do not believe that this Government has permitted sufficient public discussion or time for a position to be formulated. In summary, the Opposition supports the legislation, but we express concern at the apparent ad hoc approach of the Government. What is needed is clarity and as much simplification as possible in this fairly diverse and complex area of law. I have little confidence from the Government's performance to date that it is working along the principles of clarity and simplification. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.17) —in reply-I will be brief as there are a number of other legislative processes that have to be dealt with. I do not accept the criticism of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) who has just resumed his seat, for this reason: This Government was always anxious that we might have a national approach to matters such as this. I can understand in a federal structure that there are pressures from the States. The previous Government, which was of the same philosophy as that held by the honourable member, said that these matters have to be left, in the terms of the federal structure, to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. It is an extraordinary situation in that by way of compromise we now endeavour to legislate in what he might say is an ad hoc way on a national basis. We cannot do anything until such time as the States and the Ministerial Council agree. That is the great burden. I am advised, for the benefit of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) whose contribution I appreciate, that the amendments have been under consideration for two years by the Ministerial Council. That Council has to use its agency, which is the National Companies and Securities Commission, to advise it as to how the Commission evaluates all the various problems that have been raised here today. In fairness to the Council and in rebuttal of what might be legitimately argued-that there has not been sufficient time-I point out that there has been two years discussion through the Commission, which is the agency of the Ministerial Council, with all those who are interested in this matter- brokers and everybody else. In fairness to the Council, there has been a strong input on all those matters. It is not just a question of exposure for a week or a fortnight; it has been exposure for a period of years-- Mr McGauran —But not this legislation or the draft. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, just that, in the terms of what it means. I appreciate that the actual legal drafting might be another matter, but the Ministerial Council has had to approve these matters. I assure the honourable member of that . I just say that at the outset, because it is cumbersome; it is contrary to what the people in the federal structure would expect-that a national parliament will legislate in accordance with what it, the national parliament, dictates rather than, at the end of the line, our being merely the people who put the label on the product. The legislation has been prepared by our State counterparts and that is a problem. Mr McGauran —Is that a bad thing? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am glad the honourable member says so. That is not the philosophy of the honourable member's Party. I will turn now to some of the matters that have been raised by the honourable member for North Sydney. He said quite fairly that the Government ought to make up its mind on the level of foreign ownership for the proposed new corporate members of the stock exchange. I have to admit to the honourable member that this matter is still under consideration by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the context of the Government's view on foreign investment. But I think the fact that this matter has been raised here today might accelerate some determination of it. I appreciate also that the honourable member for North Sydney wants the Bill to be dealt with in Committee and I am not going to delay the course of action in any way. But there are some things I should say that might encourage him to comment at a later stage. According to the honourable member, the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans), in the debate in the Senate, had misunderstood the manner in which section 169 of the Companies Act operates. I am advised by my officers here today that that is not really correct. The Attorney-General was indicating that prescribed interests operate only if they are issued or offered to the public. There are prescribed interests which are not offered or issued to the public. There is a distinction to be drawn. This latter expression is a defined term. Section 5(4) of the Companies Act would have the effect as cited in this example: The hire of a football ground would not involve an offering to the public of a prescribed interest. The view is taken that the people who were interested in football would be the ones who were involved and not the public generally. Therefore, that distinction is drawn. The honourable member for North Sydney also asked whether contracts for the use of public entertainment and sporting facilities-for example, that football ground which is used on Saturdays for three years-inadvertently fall within the time-sharing definition. The attitude is that it would not fall within this definition because it is not an offer to the public. If a particular arrangement were caught, recourse could be had to the wide exemption powers of the National Companies and Securities Commission under section 215 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, State codes and section 16 of the State Companies (Application of Laws) Acts. But the definition will be kept under review and it could be amended if examples come to light of schemes which have been inadvertently caught. The other matter which the honourable member for North Sydney raised was that the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 1) should have been exposed to the public and given-- Mr Spender —As a Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As a Bill. I am advised that the Bill contains amendments to the co-operative scheme legislation consequent upon changes to the articles and business rules of the stock exchanges which came into effect on 1 April when the interim Trade Practices Commission authorisation for the previous articles and rules expired. For that reason, the Bill has had to be introduced very promptly. Consequently, in view of the delay that public exposure might entail, it cannot be offered because the other rules expired on 1 April. I think I have covered the matters that have been raised. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.27) —I thank the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) for replying to the questions that I raised in relation to the definition of a time-sharing agreement. But there are one or two further questions that I would like to raise on that matter because I am really not sure that he has answered the problem. Let me set it out sequentially. Under the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 1) which is now before the Committee, it is proposed to amend the definition of prescribed interests to include a definition of the time-sharing scheme. The effect of section 169 of the Companies Act is to prevent persons other than an agent of a company or a company itself from offering to the public prescribed interests. Where prescribed interests are to be offered to the public under section 170, it is provided that this shall not be done unless certain things are also done. Globally stated, that means that there has to be a document in the form of a prospectus with the modifications indicated by section 170. There cannot be an offer or issue of a prescribed interest unless there is an approved deed. That is provided for by section 171. The Deputy Prime Minister may be right in what he says of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I should have thought that the Attorney-General had confused the question when he said, as recorded on page 1116 of the Senate Hansard dated 3 April: . . . the central elements in the definition of prescribed interest in the parent Act, section 169 of the Australian Companies Code, which makes it clear that what we are talking about here are schemes which are offered to the public, and something which is in the nature of a scheme. It is difficult to follow what the Attorney-General had in mind, but I read it as a confusion in his mind as to what section 169 was. It does not help us to say that there is not an offer made to the public since, if I recall correctly, there is a definition in section 5 of the Companies Act of what constitutes an offer to the public. It does not mean to say that an offer has to be made to the whole of the public. That definition is to be found in section 5 (4) of the Companies Act, which states: A reference in this Act to, or to the making of, an offer to the public . . . or to the making of, an offer to any section of the public . . . or to the issuing of, an invitation to any section of the public, as the case may be, whether selected as clients of the person making the offer or issuing the invitation or in any other manner and notwithstanding that the offer is capable of acceptance only by each person to whom it is made or that an offer or application may be made pursuant to the invitation only by a person to whom the invitation is issued . . . That is a rather complex definition, but it provides that a selective offer is to be construed as an offer to the public. If I put an advertisement in a newspaper and I offer a prescribed interest then I am caught, even though it is offered only to people who may, for example, be interested in hiring time on a football field over a period of three or four years. It does not have to be the whole of the public; it can be a section of the public. Indeed, that kind of question is one which has been raised frequently in the past. The reason for the definition in its present form is that it was desired to overcome selective operations which would evade the intent of the Act, which was to ensure that issues or offers being made to the public or to classes of the public or to selected groups should be covered by certain disclosure provisions. I do not think that has answered the question. I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that, where an owner of a sporting facility offered out participation in that sporting facility over a period of more than three years and various clubs, organisations or individuals accepted that offer, whether it was a football field or any other kind of sporting or entertainment facility, they may be caught. Obviously, that is not intended to be the case under this proposal. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.29) —I wish to address a few remarks to the amendments to the Securities Industry Act 1980. I do so for a couple of reasons, one being my very great personal involvement in the affairs which led to the position in which the stock exchanges are today. It was my recommendation to Cabinet which converted the course of the stock exchanges from the direct role of the National Companies and Securities Commission to that of the Trade Practices Commission. It probably ought to be said that that course of action led to a number of things which I believe are in the best long term interests of the securities industry. Firstly, at that stage we appointed Mr Michael Gleeson-White to the Trade Practices Commission as a temporary commissioner for the benefit of this hearing . That was an unusual precedent because it injected into the hearing a man of experience in merchant banking, being the chairman of a prominent international merchant bank in Sydney, and a former Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange. The interests of both parties who were contesting the matter before the Trade Practices Commission therefore were known by someone who had practised in that field. I believe that that brought a sense of integrity and security to those people who were appearing before the Commission, which I recommend should occur in other areas. This matter of contest as to what the brokers should do dragged on. They tried continually to take themselves to the Securities Commission. Their presentation to the Trade Practices Commission was slow and not necessarily of the highest quality. As a result of their dragging their feet, I found that they ended up with their own position being only slightly less than they might have presented it to be. However, we are where we are. From 1 April the stock exchanges are subject to the overall powers of the Trade Practices Commission. At the same time, the Securities Commission has taken on the role of overviewing the rules of the stock exchanges and the general behaviour in that area. To date the workings of the Securities Commission have been difficult. It has relied on the State corporate affairs commissions, which have varied enormously in quality, and the type of work from State to State has been very different in interpretation and standard. Because of that I think it might be that the Commission has followed certain courses which, if it had had a more direct interest, may not have gone that way. I refer particularly to some of the actions taken in the State Supreme Courts, which were required under the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities and the shared responsibilities . The appointment of the associate commissioners-Mr Uhrig, Mr Nosworthy and Mr Kryger-has added enormously to the role of the Securities Commission. I am particularly pleased to see Mr Kryger involved as he is infinitely experienced and a man of great integrity. He will add a lot to the workings of the Securities Commission in a very practical sense. It was in practical application that I always found difficulties. There is far too much of a tendency for lawyers to poke their noses into the stock exchange operations without an understanding of the market place, and some of the attitudes taken towards the stock exchanges certainly reflected that. Today the stock exchanges in Australia are struggling to find what their true role is. We have seen an announcement that Elders-IXL will take a 40 per cent interest in a Melbourne firm. We have seen an announcement by the National Australia Bank that it seeks a 50 per cent interest in another Melbourne firm. Those two moves are significant. Firstly, they raise a question as to whether a commercial bank ought to be allowed to own a 50 per cent interest in a stockbroking firm. This is a development which has enormous implications. It is more down the line of the European connections between commercial banks and the stock market. It is not in line with developments in the City of London and it is not in line with Wall Streeet practice. Nevertheless, I can see the advantages of it to the larger corporations. I am not at all sure that the small investor will be advantaged by that development. It also requires some consideration in terms of the roles of the different stock exchanges, the Sydney and Melbourne stock exchanges being by far the most dominant. Something of the order of 85 per cent to 90 per cent of all the transactions in Australia are accounted for on those two stock exchanges, which means that the lesser capital cities, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Perth, have a relatively small market. Nevertheless, in the environment of State rights, we have already seen Queensland moving to eliminate State stamp duty on share transfers. This must have implications. One that readily comes to mind is that, if one is an overseas trader in Australian shares, stamp duty is at least as high a cost as is commission on overseas transactions. That alone must have some impact on business. It also means that if the smaller stock exchanges were to move in an aggressive way they could well take themselves outside the ambit of the Australian stock exchanges. That could have an impact on the National Companies and Securities Commission should a State government declare that it was no longer part of the National Companies and Securities Commission. I have raised a couple of points which I think are fundamental to debate in this area. Very significant changes are taking place. There is a need not only to take account of the company law consequences but also to take a look at the financial implications of ownership, foreign ownership, the position of banks and the position of major interests buying themselves into the stock exchange industry. Finally, in this period of enormous change, for nearly 10 years an officer in the Attorney-General's Department, formerly in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, has played a very significant role in commercial law in Australia; that is, Peter Kennedy. He is about to take up a position outside the Department. I wish him well. His contribution to the National Companies and Securities Commission, company law, the stock exchanges and bankruptcy law in Australia in the last 10 years has been very significant indeed. (Quorum formed) Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.39) —The Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No.1) is not opposed. I thank the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) for his contribution. I think it was significant. He immediately alerted us to the fact that problems are arising because of what we might term the new aspect of major corporations and banks taking interests in share brokerage firms. I think this will be significant. In some cases I think it will dominate the market and affect the small investor. It has always been a problem with the Trade Practices Act to get a balance between free enterprise and monopolisation, which would prevent free enterprise. I think the problem is highlighted further by the fact that the States themselves have a tendency to bid for business in the area of State taxes-be it death duties or anything else. We now have their involvement in the matter the honourable member mentioned. I think that will have a negative effect. In many cases that sort of counter-bidding by States destroys the national interest. It is significant that the Senate inquiry we set up to inquire into what were called the malpractices that bedevilled the stockbroking industry clearly indicated that there was only one economy, one Budget and one market in Australia, not six or seven. That always needs to be understood. We do not want in any way to intrude into State rights, nor should we; but there is a valid argument that there is a national interest and a national capacity. I think that always has to be agreed to by the States. It will weaken the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, it will weaken the whole concept of the enforcement of a national code, if those other matters are allowed to dominate the issues; for example, small markets will probably fail and small investors will be ignored. If that happens I think we will be very hard pressed to guarantee that the States themselves will give us the support we need in the Ministerial Council. Having said that, I think the contribution of the honourable member for Ryan was significant. I thank him for it. I, with him, judge that the future holds a few problems. The organisations that dominate, be they banks or trading houses, have a tendency to look at their own interests, their own profits, rather than at the general public interest, which is our responsibility. I now deal with the matter raised by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Quite fairly, he raised the point of how we define 'public interest'. Mr Spender —Public offer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable member. The way in which 'public offer' is interpreted certainly is subject to argument. I take refuge in the fact that an offer of a football ground to other football participants is not necessarily an offer to the public. The honourable member can argue that there would be so many participants that they could be defined as the public. I think, though, that we eventually have to take refuge in the fact that section 215 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, concerning the powers of the National Companies and Securities Commission, gives a right of exemption from that application; that is , section 215 (1) (c) provides an exemption from section 169 of Division 6. What I think we are saying on behalf of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is that if an arrangement is made with specific people, pursuant to a limited offer, it is not an offer to the public because we are talking about, for example, the use of a football ground, but that if it were to be interpreted as an offer to the public we could get an exemption under section 215(1)(c) of the Companies Act. I take final refuge in the fact that if all that fails the matter will be kept under continual review by the Ministerial Council. I think the matter has to be left at that. I thank the honourable member for North Sydney for his concern. Of course, the Act will be amended if it becomes apparent that the scheme is not working as intended or that it has been inadvertently caught up. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: ROADS GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(11.47) —Last night I was speaking of the effect that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill will have on the road system in my electorate. Honourable members will remember that I spoke of a number of roads. When the debate was interrupted I was talking about the Cobb Highway, which runs from roughly east of Wilcannia through Ivanhoe to Booligal. Most of that road is bad and is unsealed. I would now like to travel from Mossgeil, which is on the Cobb Highway, across toward Hillston. That is Trunk Road 80 and it is impassable after a few points of rain. I was interested to read in today's Barrier Daily Truth, a Broken Hill publication, a report by the chief traffic engineer of the National Roads and Motorists Association, Mr Searle, who said that many roads in New South Wales west of Griffith and towards Deniliquin are simply pushed up or graded out of the surrounding local soil and are impassable after light rain. Trunk Road 80 is a typical example. While I am talking about these isolated roads I would like to pay a tribute- because the opportunity is not afforded all that often-to employees of the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales who work in particularly isolated locations. They are there whether it is 110 degrees in the waterbag or whether it is below freezing, as it is on some mornings. They live and work in very isolated locations. Fortunately, now that they have two-way radios they are not so isolated. But it is still a very difficult job. They work on Trunk Road 80 and other roads to the west. The important Hillston to Mount Hope to Cobar road is in red soil country. That is also a very treacherous road after rain. What I am trying to put across is the fact that the present Government has decided to index the diesel and petrol levy and, after receiving that indexed amount, will not put it towards roads. The $500m which we would have received from that levy over the period to 1988 would certainly have improved the situation, if not in the Riverina, certainly over most of Australia. Main Road 371 runs between Rankin's Springs and Lake Cargelligo and is one of the most dangerous roads in my electorate. Recently I had a meeting at Naradhan of which the presence of the young school children in the gallery reminded me. In that area the mothers are very concerned. The State Government has taken away the school bus because of the lack of student numbers. They are very concerned by the fact that they have to take children out on that road to get to the school. The accident rate on that road is horrendous. Three shires are involved with Main Road 371, the Bland, Lachlan and Carathool shires. Those shires are hard pressed just to maintain that road, let alone carry out further construction. In the south of the electorate is Main Road 296 from Balranald which links with the south-eastern part of New South Wales. That is another bad road. On most of these roads one has the problem anyway of trying to dodge kangaroos, emus and stock which may be crossing the road. Mr Young —What about the Tibooburra road? Mr HICKS —The Tibooburra road is a good example. It is terrible. I know that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has travelled extensively on those roads, particularly in his younger days. He would know exactly what I am talking about. Trunk Road 67 from Wentworth to Pooncarie and thence to Menindee is another bad road. Actually, I am hard pressed to find any good roads in my electorate. Some have been sealed, but most of them are only pushed-up earth. I reiterate that it is not the fault of the Department of Main Roads or of the local shires in the area. They are all trying to do their best. The problem was caused by previous governments which did not provide enough money and did not get their priorities right. The present Government is guilty of the same thing. Roads are not being provided in areas which produce real wealth. I give as an example the area north of Wilcannia which this year had a $6m crop of grainseed. The people there are having difficulty in getting that shipment out of that area simply because of the road system. If they get any rain up there, heaven knows when they will get it out. I could go on and on informing the House of the need for more funding in the Riverina. Of course, the Riverina only reflects the rest of rural New South Wales. I simply say that I support the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) who is trying to get the Government to put the indexed excise back into the road system of Australia. I do not support the Bill . I agree that we should be able to say: 'Okay, if we have to keep jobs in a certain isolated area we will not go to tender'. The cost of roads being what it is today, that opportunity should be there. On the other hand I am afraid that this Bill allows anyone to opt out of the tender system. I do not think that is good enough. Finally, I hope that the Government takes on board all the remarks that have been made in this debate, that we get back the indexed excise and that the situation regarding the tender system is given responsible consideration by all those in authority. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(11.52) —in reply-I thank each of the 13 honourable members who have spoken in this wide-ranging and, in many ways, positive and constructive debate on the very important issue of roads. Let me stress to the Parliament that roads and road funding are a major priority of this Government. That is evidenced by the fact that in this very first year of the Hawke Government we are providing $l,233m for work on national highways, rural arterial roads, urban arterial roads and local roads. That amount represents an increase of some 45 per cent on the previous year's expenditure under the conservative Government. If we look at the categories of roads, we find that this year $520m is being provided by the Federal Government for expenditure on the construction and maintenance of national highways, an increase of 35 per cent. For rural and urban arterial roads $444m is being provided, an increase of 56 per cent. For local roads, or council roads as so many of us know them, $303m is being provided by this Government, an increase of 68 per cent. Roads are the vital lifeline in this country for so many people. Roads tie so much of this country together. It is important, then, that roads continue to receive a very high priority. One disappointing aspect of the debate was that, given that there were so many speakers on this important issue, Tasmania did not rate a mention from the other side of the House. I say specifically with respect to Tasmania that this Government regards the provision of road funding in Tasmania as one of the most important issues for that State. I point out that some $52m is being provided for Tasmania this year, an increase of 44 per cent. Of that sum, $21.2m is going towards national highway work in Tasmania; $16m is going towards arterial roadworks in Tasmania, an increase of 72 per cent; and $14m is going towards work on local roads, an increase of 44 per cent. I think it is regrettable that, given that all of the Federal members in this House from Tasmania are in the Opposition, not one of them saw fit to participate in this wide-ranging debate. The first point which needs to be emphasised is the need for some flexibility in the tendering arrangements. This is not an issue which has arisen only since this Government came to office. Representations have been made by each of the State and Territory governments, by local government and by unions ever since the compulsory tendering requirement was first introduced early in 1981. The amendments contained in the legislation before the House have been put forward after lengthy consideration. In particular, there have been discussions with each of the State and Territory governments and with the Australian Transport Advisory Council. There have been discussions with the industry organisations involved. There have been discussions with the unions involved. The amendments which are contained in this legislation were agreed to in principle by each of the governments. It was a unanimous recommendation by ATAC. For instance, the Queensland Minister for Main Roads, Local Government and Racing, Mr Hinze, has been one of the strongest advocates of the need for flexibility in the application of the requirements. It is interesting to note that the members of the National Party of Australia in this chamber are opposing the wishes of their colleagues at a State level. When this legislation goes across to the Senate it will be very interesting to see what the National Party senators, who are so forthright in their support of States rights, will say in respect of this legislation if they are genuinely representing State interests in the other place. I expect, given their previous record in regard to States rights, that they will be wholeheartedly supporting the amendments now before us . I wish to make special mention of a point raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) because it is a very important matter. I refer to the upgrading of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin. The honourable member rightly exposed the very shabby role of the Northern Territory Government in this matter. In the Territory, the Northern Territory Government has been saying that the highway needs to be upgraded, but at a government to government level it has been saying to us that the road is quite adequate and that it does not require any upgrading. Honourable members may have noted the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), three weeks ago yesterday, in which he noted the repudiation by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory of the necessity for the upgrading of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin. The matter goes further than that because during the debate last evening the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), the Opposition's spokesman on northern development, made the point that he had been to the Northern Territory, that he had noticed that the roads were of a high standard and that he could see cause for support for the view being expressed by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. It is only the efforts of the honourable member for the Northern Territory that are keeping to the fore this issue that the upgrading of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin should proceed. We have had to give further consideration to the projects that are outstanding on that highway. Honourable members will recall that yesterday afternoon the honourable member for the Northern Territory asked me whether I would make available an officer from my Department to accompany him on an inspection of that highway in the very near future. I am pleased to be able to inform the honourable member that I have given consideration to his request. We are further examining the need for upgrading the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin, and I am pleased to tell him that I have decided that an officer of the Department will be made available, as the honourable member has requested, for the task that he has outlined. I should mention also that there are currently approved works of some $9.8m for the Stuart Highway. The funds have been available under both the Roads Grants Act and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act. So it is nonsense for the Northern Territory Government to complain that there is no work to go ahead with. Substantial work is available under existing approvals. But, in respect of each of the other projects that I am considering at the moment, it is necessary to consider them in the light of the Northern Territory Government's opposition to upgrading of the highway, which I outlined earlier. Turning to the issue of the new tendering arrangements, they have been opposed by the Opposition spokesman on transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), and by some Opposition speakers, supported in part by other Opposition speakers, acquiesced to by Oppositions speakers and opposed outright by others. A totally confused picture came forward in the debate. There seemed to be no consistent line from the Opposition as to its attitude. Experience has shown that the tendering process has been a means of getting value for the taxpayers' dollar, but it is clear-it was clear to the previous Government-that in some special circumstances a rigid adherence to this requirement would be counterproductive. The requirement always to go to tender may sometimes prevent State road authorities from efficiently deploying their day labour forces. They are forces that they must maintain for urgent works and for situations in which the private contractors do not tender or the private contractors submit excessively high bids. The circumstances under which States may seek exemption have been set out in the Bills. However, under the legislation the onus will be on the States to satisfy the Minister for Transport that the criteria in the legislation apply before the tendering requirement is waived. There will be no open door to the avoidance of tendering procedures, as has been suggested-in fact, I think rather hoped for-by some members of the Opposition. I do not envisage that there will be more than an occasional need to utilise these provisions. At present my Department is preparing a set of stringent guidelines which will be incorporated in the notes on administration of the legislation and against which I will assess a State's application for exemption. Let me emphasise that these guidelines will be designed to ensure that the consideration of applications for exemption is based on a rigorous and detailed examination of all the relevant factors involved. An argument in favour of private contractors was put by the Opposition. Again, I emphasise that private road contractors can tender for all roadworks across the spectrum, whether they be available for tender in the public sector, the private sector, or any construction work that is put to tender by either the public or the private sector. However, the State road authorities, the public road authorities, are generally-it varies from State to State-limited by this legislation to being able to tender only for work offered by public road authorities. They are excluded in the main from the private sector. The point to make in respect of the tendering is that all governments-Federal, State and Territory, be they conservative or Labor governments-are as one on this issue that the existing legislation is rigid, inflexible and inefficient in a number of respects. That is the reason this legislation is now before the Parliament. The honourable member for Dawson in his comments ignored the fact that country councils in Queensland have been to the fore in local government representations , especially the Barcaldine Shire Council. It is not enough for the Opposition to say, as did the last speaker for the Opposition, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks), 'Those fellows working on the main roads are doing a great job out there in the country in isolated locations, under difficult conditions of loneliness and harsh accommodation, and we think they are great blokes'; and then, on the other hand, say: 'We do not think they are really competent enough to carry out the work efficiently and as effectively as the private sector' and by the existing legislation, which is the Opposition's legislation and that of the honourable member, give a preference, an exclusive right, to the private sector to carry out roadworks. Honourable members opposite cannot have two bob each way. They cannot run back to their constituencies and say 'We think you are great blokes', and come into this place and tell the Parliament that those men are not efficient, and that is why they are opposing this legislation. They should make up their minds on where they stand. They cannot make such a statement in their electorates and come here and say the opposite. They should be consistent. The effect of the comments from the Opposition speakers is that they judge public roadworks forces to be inefficient and far more costly than those of the private sector. Mr Lusher —There is no favouritism. You know that. You are supporting it. Why don't you knock it right out? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member for Hume has already spoken in this debate. Mr Humphreys —Toss him right out. Give him an early shower. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am sure the honourable member needs it after last week. I turn now to the issue of urban public transport and the funding of urban public transport projects under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act. The Opposition's spokesman on transport stated that he was not aware of the ABRD-UPT provisions being used until the announcement of the New South Wales projects during the recent State election. It seemed to me also that he was unclear about the projects actually announced. I say again to members of the Opposition that the legislation as it exists is their legislation. Most Opposition members who are present voted for it. It is reasonable for the Australian people and the Parliament to expect them to know its provisions and to understand it. Urban public transport funding is available under the ABRD Act. The former Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who is in the chamber, knows that, because he was responsible for it. Under that provision, projects had been approved in four States-Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia-prior to the announcement of the New South Wales projects. In fact, at the last Federal election a number of Queensland projects were approved by the previous Minister after the election had been called. Two rail electrification projects and six passenger interchanges were approved by the Minister in the former Government at an estimated cost of almost $26m. Approvals were given on 8 February 1983, a few days after the election was announced, and on 2 March 1983, three days before last year's election. Both approvals were given during the caretaker period of the former Government and both were contrary to convention relating to an outgoing government and the management of government business. So members of the Opposition, with their cant, should not raise the issue of approvals that were given in respect of projects for New South Wales. Those projects were put forward as elements of a proposed UPT program in September 1983, six months previously. It was not a matter of expediency, as was the case with the Queensland approvals last year. It was simply a matter of good government and that the items were appropriate. They met the requirements under the Act and, accordingly, they were approved. I turn to the jobs on local roads program because it is an interesting program. It seems that because it has been so successful-to date, some 6,437 jobs have been created-because it generates additional jobs, because some 700 councils in Australia are participating in the program, and because 1,150 projects have been processed by my Department, the Opposition has to find some way of criticising it. Last night the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) declared that the jobs on local roads program was not part of the roads issue. That defies my understanding. How he can say that the great work that is being done under the jobs on local roads program is not part of the roads program is beyond my comprehension. That program is very much appreciated by local government. It has been a great success under the community employment program, and I know that local government desperately wants to see that program continue for some years. I turn briefly to the issue of the indexation of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund levy because obviously that will come up again in the Committee stage of the debate. It is very clear that some people in the National Party organisation decided to write a Press release about the issue of indexation which was circulated. Each member of the National Party put his name on the top of the Press release and each copy carried the same words. In parrot fashion, they concentrated on how much money from indexation of the ABRD levy would have gone to local government. The amount is $2.7m. Yesterday in this chamber they repeated their argument in parrot fashion. I know it is reasonable to expect National Party members to know a lot about parrots because it fits their environment to be parroting rather than developing individual thought and analysing legislation. But they know very well that last year $70m in additional funds, exclusive of ABRD, was made available specifically for local government. We have done something for local road funding in this country. Honourable members opposite bled local government. In their seven years in government they quadrupled Federal fuel related revenues. They trebled the price of petrol to people in the country and they robbed road authorities of $520m in road funds. They have the temerity to talk about the $2.7m that may have been lost to local government because of non-indexation of the levy. We have done something for local government, and I will deal with that issue in more detail later. I conclude by briefly referring to some of the comments made by members of the Opposition. I mentioned the attitude of the honourable member for Dawson towards Northern Territory roads. But I was intrigued that at the conclusion of his remarks he was gravely concerned about how difficult it was to travel from Parliament House to Canberra Airport. He was not concerned about roads in the Northern Territory-they are of a high standard-but he was concerned about the trip from Parliament House to the airport, the fact that there were two bridges to cross and that there was a bit of a delay. That, again, indicates the priorities of the National Party in regard to people in the country and people in the Territory. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) bewailed the fact that work had not commenced on the Tweed Heads bypass. Members of the Opposition do not want to hear about the Tweed Heads bypass because only two National Party members are in the chamber. (Quorum formed) Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kent, L.Beazley, K. C. Keogh, L. J.Beddall, D. P. Kerin, J. C.Bilney, G. N. Lindsay, E. J.Blanchard, C. A. McHugh, J.Blewett, N. Maher, M. J.Bowen, Lionel Mayer, H.Brown, John Mildren, J. B.Campbell, G. Milton, P.Charles, D. E. Morris, AllanCharlesworth, R. I. Morris, PeterChynoweth, R. L. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Jones, Barry Willis, R.Keating, P. J. Young, M. J.Kelly, R. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E.Klugman, R. E. Coleman, W. P.Brown, Robert Connolly, D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GROOM —Yes, I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GROOM —During the second reading debate the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) suggested that because the Tasmanian members had not participated in the debate they had no interest in the roads of their State. There are some points I would like to make about that in order to answer that allegation and misrepresentation by the Minister. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman is entitled to explain to the House how he was misrepresented. He is not entitled to debate the issue, nor is he entitled to make a personal explanation on behalf of other Tasmanian members. Mr GROOM —Well, I shall direct my personal explanation to my particular situation. The Minister misrepresented me-- Mr Peter Morris —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. No names were mentioned by me. There was no personal-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Braddon is not entitled to make a personal explanation if he was not named by the Minister in the House. Mr GROOM —With all due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Minister at the table says that the five Tasmanian members-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman may resume his seat. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr Newman —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With all respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the ruling that you have just made, I point out that there are only five Tasmanian members, and that-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Bill. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(12.26) —I move the amendment which has been circulated in my name: Page 1, after clause 2, insert the following new clause: Moneys to be paid into Road Fund '2A. Section 8 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: '(8) In addition to the amounts payable into the Road Fund from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under sub-sections (1) and (2) there shall be paid into the Road Fund an amount bearing to the amounts payable pursuant to sub- sections (1) and (2) the same proportion as the current rate of Excise duty for motor spirit or diesel fuel entered for home consumption bears to such rate as at 30 June 1983.' The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the amount of money which is raised by indexing the 2c a litre bicentennial road levy and which at present flows to Consolidated Revenue and stays there will flow into the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund and be spent on roads. The Opposition's view about this matter is very strong. We are committed to the view that the agreement that was made between motorist organisations, State governments, local governments and the Federal Government, and finally introduced in the form of legislation by the then Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), was clearly to an arrangement by which there would be a levy and that the money raised by the levy would be paid to the Trust Fund and made available for roads. At that stage there was no intent on the part of the former Government to index anything by way of levy. That is something which has come about only as a result of the avariciousness of the Hawke Labor Government and of the present Treasurer (Mr Keating), who is having all sorts of difficulty in trying to keep his Budget balanced. As a result of that, it was quite appropriate that when the levy legislation was introduced we provided for 2c a litre of the levy that was paid into Consolidated Revenue to be paid into the Bicentennial Trust Fund and then allocated, in turn, to roads. One can imagine the disappointment that the Opposition felt-and all the motorist organisations, local government organisations and everyone who is concerned with roads felt-when the Treasurer indexed that levy, among other levies, and we learned that the amount of money raised over and above the 2c a litre as a result of indexation was to be left to sit in Consolidated Revenue and not be paid across to the Road Development Trust Fund. We have raised this matter time and again. We have raised it by questions in this place. It has been confirmed by both the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) that that money is not being paid across to the Road Development Trust Fund and that they have no intention of so doing. The legislation before the House has been brought forward by the Minister because he wants to make changes to the tendering arrangements and changes to the arrangements that are required by States in relation to urban public transport and to their traditional road spending effort. Yet the Minister was not prepared , when he brought the legislation before the House, to raise the question of the indexation effect on the bicentennial road levy. So, the Opposition is raising the matter. We shall put the Government to the test. We shall make Government members vote, if that is what they want to do, against paying that money across to the Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund, as was clearly the intent of everybody associated with this particular levy when the deal was struck and prior to the introduction of the legislation by the former Government. I do not know how I can express more strongly my view and the Opposition's view about this matter. We are committed to the view that if there is to be indexation it is imperative that the additional revenue must be paid across for roads. The estimate which I mentioned in the second reading debate last night was prepared by the Australian Road Transport Federation. I have put it to the Treasurer; he has not been prepared to dispute it. To my knowledge, the Minister for Transport has not been prepared to dispute it. The estimate shows that $491m will be raised as a result of the indexation of the 2c levy. That $491m will lie in Consolidated Revenue and be spent on other priorities of this Government, but not on roads. If the figure of $2.5 billion, which was the figure used by the former Minister as to what would be raised by the bicentennial levy over the life of the program, remains a correct figure, the figure of what will be raised by indexation, about $500m, means that the indexation effect will raise an additional 20 per cent, one-fifth, of what was being raised by the levy itself, and that money will not be going to roads. I make it clear to the Committee and to anyone who might be interested that there would never have been agreement on the part of States, local government and motorist organisations to the 2c levy in the first place had it not been clearly stated and agreed by the Federal Government that it would be hypothecated for roads. Yet within months this Government has breached that trust, breached that faith and breached that agreement, has indexed the levy and will pull in about $500m over the life of the program up to the bicentennial, pay it into Consolidated Revenue and spend it on who knows what, but certainly not on roads. We are not prepared to accept that. That is why we have moved and shall support the amendment, and we shall see which way Government members vote on this issue. This Government has done absolutely nothing in relation to roads, with the single exception of the jobs on local roads program. I am big enough to pay credit to the Minister for that program. It will provide additional funds for roads. I say 'Hear, hear' to that; so be it. I give credit to the Minister. But the Minister will not give credit to the former Government for what is going on. A few minutes ago in this debate he took credit for the fact that his Government , his ministry, has increased by 45 per cent the amount of money going to roads this year. He knows that that is absolute nonsense. He knows that it is so close to being an untruth that the procedures of the House of Representatives ought to provide a way of dealing with him for having said that. He knows that it is because of the introduction of the ABRD levy by the previous Government. He knows that it is as a result of the increased flow coming into the revenue and into the Trust Fund and the way that that has picked up-it has gone from 1c to 2c a litre-that he is able to preside over that increase in funding which is flowing to roads. It is not due to one decision that he, the Treasurer or the Government took. It is due entirely to decisions of the former Government, over the results of which he is now able to preside as the incumbent Minister. That is so in much the same way as the wages pause has provided enormous benefits for Australia's economic recovery, which is now being presided over by the Hawke Labor Government. Just as the Labor Government is taking credit for that initiative of the former Government, so it is with this increase in road funds. Everyone in this Committee knows, and everyone in the country knows, that the credit is due to the former Government and to the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). However, although I am prepared to acknowledge the present Minister's contribution in the form of the jobs on local roads program, he will not acknowledge the former Government's contribution and that of the former Minister in his initiatives and that Government's initiatives in getting through the ABRD program and in providing the mechanisms which have provided that 45 per cent increase in funding, over which he is presiding and for which he seeks to take credit. Shame on the Minister for not being prepared to acknowledge that. Shame on him for being able to sit in that chair and claim the credit for a 45 per cent increase in road funding for which he knows, as does everyone who sits behind him, he can take absolutely no credit. What has the Government done apart from introducing the JOLOR program? It has let the States off the hook. It is changing the arrangements that relate to tendering-one of the few sensible things that have been done in roadmaking in this country over recent years. Those arrangements ensured that there would be value for the dollar in the roadmaking area. I think that the Government and the Minister stand condemned for the miserable nature of the approach they have taken in relation to this. They will not give credit where credit is due. They say: 'This Government's commitment to roads is such that we have been prepared to put 45 per cent more funds into roads than you were'. What absolute hypocrisy , cant and nonsense! It is about time the Minister was prepared to give credit where credit is due. The Opposition is putting the Minister to the test. We know that in opposition he opposed the ABRD program. I have quoted from his Press release. I have made it clear to the chamber that from the beginning he would not have a bar of the ABRD program and opposed it. I know and his colleagues know that in opposition he opposed it in the Caucus. He was told by his colleagues: 'Don't be stupid, Peter; this is a sensible program which will get money into roads'. Finally he was forced to capitulate. Now, in government, as a Minister, he has no choice but to live with the ABRD program that we introduced in government. It is providing 45 per cent more money for roads this year. Under indexation it would have provided another $500m over the life of the program for additional spending on roads. The amendment which I have moved and which the Opposition will support will ensure that that money will go to roads if the Government is prepared to accept it. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(12.36) —Mr Deputy Chairman-- Mr Newman —Are you winding up the debate? Mr PETER MORRIS —Yes, I am winding up the debate. Why not? You have nothing to say. This is a very narrow amendment. You were not here; you do not care about Tasmania. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! Honourable members will resume their seats. Mr Newman —He is refusing us the opportunity to speak. He is a hypocrite. He hates Tasmania. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Bass will resume his seat. The Minister's rising in itself does not signify the fate of the debate. Mr Newman —He said he was going to close the debate. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! Will honourable members remain silent? The Minister is free in the Committee stage to rise to take part in the debate as often as is necessary. Honourable members other than the Minister are restricted to two opportunities to speak. The Minister's rising at this stage is not any indication to the Chair as to his future intentions. Mr PETER MORRIS —Let me explain that the agreements introduced in the 1983-84 Budget provide for automatic six-monthly indexation of excise charges to replace the previous system of ad hoc adjustments which had evolved over a number of years and which were so beloved to former conservative governments. They just increased excise and whacked the proceeds straight into Consolidated Revenue without accounting for it. The Australian bicentennial road development legislation which was passed by the previous Government simply provides for payment to the ABRD Trust Fund of an amount equal to 2c per litre from net fuel excise collections. I say again that the previous Government-its remains now sit on the other side- did not see fit to specify in the legislation any form of indexation, any form of hypothecation or any adjustment other than the 2c per litre. It is its legislation. I sat right through the debates at the time. There was no suggestion that there was to be any change from that position. In fact, the legislation required that for the first year the amount be one cent and that for the second year it be 2c. Honourable members opposite did not see fit to make any adjustments for the third, fourth, fifth or sixth years. They should not come to me complaining because they have suddenly got the idea that it ought to be indexed. That was their failing. That was their decision. The agreement that was reached between the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, the previous Federal Government and the State governments is contained in the legislation and is being faithfully implemented by this Government. The arguments have been about what that means for local government. Mr Lusher —You have totally breached the spirit of it. You know that. Mr PETER MORRIS —I say to the honourable member and to his colleagues in opposition that that is one of the reasons for their being in opposition. They did not understand what they were doing. They still do not really understand what they did. It is their legislation. They do not understand the provision. That was obvious from the debate last night and it is obvious from their interjections and comments now. They have concentrated on the money that may have gone to local government as a result of indexation. That amount would have been $2.7m. In the same Budget, the current Budget, a special allocation of some $70m-26 times as much-has been provided to local government for work on local roads. It has been provided not out of the ABRD Fund but out of additional funds ; it is a special allocation under the JOLOR program. For heaven's sake; honourable members opposite should get their priorities right. Local government is concerned about the $70m it is getting, not about the $2.7m that it may have got. That is why honourable members opposite are in opposition. They do not understand. They have not been concerned. Let me go on. If the revenue from the indexation of the ABRD surcharge had been paid into the Trust Fund in 1983-84 the total would have been some $22m. Consider that in the context of a total Federal road expenditure this year of $1 ,233m. Honourable members opposite have themselves in a knot over the $22m, not the $1,233m or the $70m for local government that is included in that amount. They can stay where they are. They will be there for a long time if they follow that set of priorities. We are very happy about it. I turn now to the broader issue of public finance. It is clearly inappropriate in light of the practice of the gentlemen opposite when they were in government, and of previous conservative governments, to respond definitively on this issue at this time. They know very well, as I know, that it is a matter for consideration in the Budget context. They know that, but they are going through the stage play. I think they protesteth too much. They could have done something about the legislation last year but they did not. I and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have already indicated that the general issue of excise and the application of the proceeds from excise will be considered when the Budget comes up for consideration later this year. It is quite fatuous for those on the other side to suggest that we have breached the spirit of the legislation. The legislation is being implemented exactly as it was written. Mr Groom —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. The Minister has not yet given this chamber an assurance that he will let the Tasmanian members speak during the Committee stage. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —There is no point of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —Mr Deputy Chairman, I have no intention of making excuses for members of the Liberal Party who were not here for a debate that went for several hours last night. If some of them want to identify themselves as the guilty people, let them do it. Mr Newman —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. The Minister has been saying, quite incorrectly and quite maliciously, that the Tasmanians are not interested in this legislation, knowing full well that we are here and want to speak. He is arrogant enough now to be cutting off the debate so that we cannot represent our constituents. He should apologise. It is a disgrace. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —In response to the points that were raised by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), do not let us talk about the 'avariciousness', as he terms it, of this Treasurer; let us recall that the gentlemen who now sit opposite, in their seven disastrous years of government, quadrupled Federal fuel -related taxes. Mr Goodluck —That is an unfair statement. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is a factual statement. They quadrupled the Federal fuel- related taxes. They more than trebled the price of petrol for everybody. What did they do with road funds? They slashed Federal road expenditure by half a billion dollars. They should not come in here talking about indexation and the few million dollars derived from that. These are the guilty men. They trebled the price of petrol. (Quorum formed) The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! It being past l2.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order l06A, I shall report progress. Progress reported. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The House may at a later hour again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(12.48) —I move: That this House is of the opinion that the Government should establish a uniform system with the States for the rapid exchange of data on stolen vehicles so that the disposal of stolen vehicles is made more difficult. In the Western world and in countries such as ours there are two major material ambitions that most people adhere to. The first is eventually to own one's own home. But prior to that most people, upon entering the work force, look forward to the day when they buy their first vehicle. That is something that everybody looks forward to and something that is expected. However, today we are finding a rapid increase in the incidence of stolen vehicles in Australia. Latest information from motoring organisations is that some 100,000 vehicles were stolen in 1983, an alarming 10 per cent increase over the number of vehicles stolen in 1982. To give some idea of the magnitude of the problem let me cite the following figures. In New South Wales there were 50,000 vehicles stolen; in Victoria, 19,000 vehicles; in Queensland, 10,000 vehicles; in Western Australia, 10,000 vehicles; and in South Australia, 6,000 vehicles. To put it into another perspective, last year in Victoria a vehicle was stolen every 28 minutes. In New South Wales there was a theft every 10 minutes. An indication of the fate of stolen vehicles is that in New South Wales about one-third of stolen vehicles are not recovered. That is an enormous amount of vehicles. Some are reregistered successfully, often interstate. That is the reason I believe there is every reason for Federal concern. Many are broken up for parts or simply wrecked, hidden or destroyed. Of the remaining vehicles, it has been estimated that 33 per cent are recovered as a total loss; 39 per cent are recovered with some damage; and 8 per cent have articles removed. It is, therefore, clear that any person unfortunate enough to have a vehicle stolen is likely to lose in one way or another. The Government is aware of and very concerned about this problem. However, its resolution will require the concerted efforts of all governments, vehicle owners and motor vehicle insurance companies. Discussions have already been initiated between governments in several forums. One forum is the Australian Transport Advisory Council. This Council comprises all Federal, State and Territory transport Ministers. The ATAC meets at regular intervals. Another forum is the Australian Police Ministers' Council. This comprises the Federal, State and Territory police Ministers. Both the Australian Police Ministers' Council-the APMC, as it is known-and the Australian Transport Advisory Council have been working on ways of combatting the problem. The APMC has established a pilot scheme for the exchange of information on stolen vehicles on a computer-to- computer system between New South Wales and Victoria, with links to the Australian Federal Police and Queensland. Early results from this scheme are most encouraging. However, because of the differing arrangements for registration in the various States and Territories, the Chairman of the APMC, the Hon. Race Mathews from Victoria, has drawn the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for consideration at the next Premiers Conference. Automobile associations have also expressed concern. Residents in New South Wales will be aware of the recent National Roads and Motorists' Association campaign aimed at reducing vehicle theft and insurance fraud. Other speakers in this debate will no doubt touch on these campaigns. The Australian Transport Advisory Council and Australian police Ministers agree that the matter is of such magnitude that it warrants support from the highest levels of government. This support is required because of the need for co-operation of agencies, particularly in a number of jurisdictions. As I said before, it has been suggested that the matter be addressed at the next Premiers Conference. The resolution of this problem will need to address a large number of issues. The different councils will need to come up with a package that helps to control each separate aspect. Issues that will need to be examined should include: How do these vehicles come to be stolen? What types of cars are stolen? Where were the cars parked-in a parking area, a street, a carport or a garage? Was the car locked? Are the keys left in cars? All these issues clearly need to be looked at . A recent survey in Victoria found that 33 per cent of stolen cars had been left unlocked and 8 per cent had even had keys left in the ignition, making it very easy for the thieves, particularly the petty thieves, to help themselves. We also need to look at who steals cars. There seem to be three main areas: The joy-riders, organised crime and petty thieves. Joy-riders are usually the disillusioned or irresponsible young who use the car and then damage it as an act of vandalism or abandon the car undamaged or with some collision damage. But most cars are recovered at some cost to everybody because of the insurance problems. Professional thieves involved in organised crime change the identity of the car, sell it or dismantle it for parts or selectively remove parts. In that area too we have the fraudulent claims on a smaller scale-those who stage thefts or theft-and-burn incidents in order to profit from an inusrance payout. As well as this, we have the petty thieves, the 8 per cent who remove articles from the car. How effective are current controls imposed by the State and Territory registering authorities when interstate or unregistered vehicles are presented for reregistration? This is an issue that needs looking at seriously and that we hope will come before the Premiers Conference. What checks are used to ensure that the car being reregistered is not stolen? Are they effective between States ? How effective are current methods of identifying the vehicle? Many manufacturers use their own vehicle identification number system. There is no uniform standard in Australia. I believe that a uniform system should be introduced, together with an Australian design rule. Supportive legislation should then make it illegal to alter or to remove the vehicle identification number from the vehicle or the component part. It should be a crime to traffick in vehicles or parts from which the vehicle identification number has been removed or altered. Recommendations have been put forward for the adoption of the United States practice of requiring vehicle identification numbers to be displayed in a place easily seen from outside the vehicle, for example, on the instrument panel at the bottom of the windscreen. Another recommendation is to seek laws which require manufacturers to keep records of body numbers, engine numbers and transmission numbers which are represented by a production sequence number which forms part of a vehicle identification number. Tighter controls should be applied to interstate registration laws and administration. It is easy in some Australian States to register a vehicle stolen in another State. Body numbers, as well as engine numbers, should be recorded by State departments of motor transport to facilitate the identification of vehicles. Each State registration authority should inspect each vehicle being registered for the first time in that State and compare the vehicle's engine chassis number against a national stolen vehicle register. It is understood this problem is under review and that some uniformity in registration laws may soon be reached. If this can be achieved, it will help to close one avenue for the disposal of stolen vehicles. A national stolen vehicle register should be set up to facilitate the exchange of information between States and to enable police forces to co-ordinate their efforts to combat the crime of car theft. The register could be kept by the Federal police and circulated to State police and State registration authorities. Another question that needs attention is the adequacy of police resources and of the methods to recover vehicles and catch the people responsible for car thefts. That will be covered by other speakers in the debate. Is there room for improvement of administration systems between the police and registration authorities? Can we improve the security of vehicles by using improved locks, alarms and the like? Because car thefts immediately mean higher premiums for all motorists, what role do insurance companies play, and do they have a greater role to play in the system? We need only look at page 10 of the report by the NRMA in September 1983 on motor vehicle theft and insurance frauds to see who suffers. The report, on page 10, states: In 1982, less than 10 per cent of people with NRMA car insurance were under the age of 25 but they suffered 19 per cent of the thefts. Factors which contribute to this imbalance include: 1. Young people own cars which are attractive to thieves because of their make or model. 2. They are often fitted with expensive optional equipment including stereo/ radio, alloy wheels, etc. 3. Cars driven by young people are more likely to be parked in the street or in public places where thefts are prevalent. Fifty-one per cent of insurance claims for theft of vehicles received by the NRMA in 1982 related to insurance policies which had been in force for less than two years. By contrast, 33 per cent of all car policyholders had been insured with the NRMA for less than two years. Thirty-two per cent of the theft claims related to cars which had been insured for less than 12 months, but only 19 per cent of policyholders had been insured for less than 12 months. The NRMA believes that factors which contribute to this are: In the case of genuine theft claims, many of the cars in their first year of insurance are new and are therefore attractive to the professional thief. In the case of fraudulent claims, it is older cars in their first years of insurance from which claimants profit by staging their theft and the destruction after they have been over-insured. Many young people around Australia today are finding it very difficult to attract any sort of insurance at all to their vehicles. It becomes a matter of concern to all governments when we have on the roads these vehicles which cannot be insured simply because of the enormous costs of the situation. Therefore, we need to look into this situation. We need to take a national interest in it to see what can be done to overcome the problem. The list of issues that we are looking at is not exhaustive. However, it is clear that the stealing of these motor vehicles is a major problem. It is not simply a question of a few joy-riders; it is an issue of significant crime which affects all Australians. Consequently, it would seem to me that there is a need for governments to fully co-operate in developing the improved data system to ensure the rapid exchange of data on stolen vehicles. It is good to see that even at this stage the Australian Police Ministers' Council and the Australian Transport Advisory Council have established a pilot scheme. It is also good to see that the early results of that scheme are most encouraging. We do need to improve the reregistration checks to ensure that stolen vehicles are not reregistered. Data from New South Wales indicates that each year there are about 124,000 pre-registration engine number checks and that 140 stolen vehicles are detected as a result. We are not covering all the vehicles. We do not know how many stolen vehicles get through the registration system. Further safeguards against reregistration which could be brought into operation involved prospective purchaser checks with police. A person buying a vehicle could be assured that that vehicle was genuine when he or she bought it if the data were available from the police for the public. A consumer advisory service covering legal ownership could also be established. There are other areas that need to be covered. We need a review of penalties relating to stolen vehicles. Are they solid enough? Are the courts handing out strong enough penalties to deter those who are breaking the law and stealing vehicles? It seems that right through society we have these problems now. The evidence is quite clear from the number of cars being stolen-I detailed earlier in my speech that some 50,000 vehicles were stolen last year in New South Wales alone-that the criminal element is certainly involved in this issue. Some 19,000 vehicles were stolen in Victoria-up 10 per cent on previous figures. Any organisation that is increasing its business at the rate of 10 per cent a year in an illegal area needs careful consideration. We know the problems that the police have in trying to track down stolen vehicles. We know that the police forces are understaffed. There needs to be a complete national look to see what funding is required to overcome this problem. It is quite conceivable, and accepted by many police, that the total crime situation, the drug situation, is involved also. The criminal element of the country is very much involved in the turnover of these vehicles that are being stolen in such a way that it is very hard to detect. Hence, I bring this forward as a matter which the Federal Parliament should take a great interest in and should be involved in. We need a review of the current locking devices on cars and of the need for better vehicle security. Vehicle manufacturers need to be brought into line with regard to these sorts of things and to discuss with governments what can be done , because there is no doubt that any professional would take only a minute or two to get into today's modern car. I have occasionally left my keys in my own vehicle, and it takes me only three minutes at the most to get hold of a clothes hanger and get in. So, a car is not very safe when left in the street even if it is locked. We need to develop the co-operation of car owners and insurance companies. This is very important, because the situation has developed to the stage where insurance companies now have to have people with training in anti-fraud measures on the job at all times, first of all, to make sure that a claim is correct, but also to protect the honest person who has insured his car and had a genuine accident or genuinely had that car stolen. It is becoming more and more difficult to put claims forward to insurance companies simply because of this growth in car thefts. It has given me great pleasure to move that it is the opinion of this House that we should estalish a uniform system. We should do it in conjunction with the States. We should set up a rapid exchange of data on stolen vehicles to protect the public, to catch those that are involved and to see that justice is done, particularly to our young people who today are having such great difficulties in having their vehicles insured. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the motion seconded? Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(1.07) —It gives me great pleasure to second the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) and I agree very much with the points he made about the seriousness of this problem. For that reason I was a bit upset to see in yesterday's Age newspaper a report by my good friend Robert Haupt which sought to cast some doubt on whether this was a proper matter for the Parliament to discuss. Of course, everybody has his own feelings about what it would be a good idea for Parliament to discuss, but in view of the seriousness of this problem it seems to me to be absolutely the right thing for the Parliament to turn its attention to it. As for the size of that problem, it is the case that one in 10 registered motor vehicles will be stolen before it reaches the end of its life. It is the case that the stealing of cars in Australia is now a $200m a year business. The numbers are just frightening. As my colleague has said, nearly 100,000 motor vehicles, including motor bikes, trailers and caravans, were stolen in 1983-a 10 per cent increase on last year. It is not a serious thing just because it is an industry, as one might call it; it is also very serious for the individual who is affected by it. Short of one's family home, for most of us our car is the thing in which we invest most. Indeed , to keep it running costs us a great deal as well. So one is caused a great deal of inconvenience and distress when one's car is stolen. Because of the size of this industry, most people are at risk in one way or another, are affected either directly or through their hip-pocket by virtue of the increase in insurance premiums necessary to cover the cost of insurance as a result of so many cars being stolen. In fact, the estimate is that about $1 in $8 of the cost of a current insurance policy is needed to cover just the risk of theft. An average premium for insuring a car nowadays is around $230. About $30 of that is required to cover just against theft. Last year that figure was $20. The year before that it was only $10. That is really hitting the hip-pocket nerve of not just those who get their cars stolen but also who have to pay for policies to cover the cost of it. Those figures for theft claims have doubled in the last five years, so there is a very considerable increase. There are some considerable differences between the States in the pervasiveness of this particular problem. New South Wales, as my colleague said, easily has the biggest problem and the rate of car theft there is rising very rapidly. In South Australia and Victoria, I am pleased to say, over the last couple of years there has been a drop in the percentage of cars stolen in proportion to the vehicle population. There has been a slight rise in the numbers in South Australia, but in proportion to the vehicle population the figures have in fact dropped. I think that is because of some excellent and, as I will say later, some rather innovative work by the police force in South Australia which has led to better means of coping with this problem. In fact quite a deal of co-operation does go on between the State police forces , and the purpose of the motion moved by the honourable member for McMillan is to ensure that this work is given the higher priority and the greater urgency it deserves. In South Australia, for example, quite a lot of research has been done on so-called 'hot spots' where cars are more likely to be stolen. This research and analysis has led to the identification of particular areas and of particular makes of vehicle which are most likely to get hit. One can construct in fact a top 10 hit list of cars which are likely to be stolen. That is headed by General Motors-Holden's Ltd products of one kind or another: Holden Monaro, Holden Statesman, Holden Premier, and particularly the more up-market range of Holden Commodores. If one puts those models together with the areas where they are most likely to be stolen one can say that if one parks, for example, a late model Commodore SLE in Light Square in Adelaide one has got a very good chance not only of getting it stolen but also of never seeing the car again because the chances are that it will be taken by an organised car theft ring which specialises in either making the car unidentifiable and then re-selling it, probably interstate, or stripping the whole thing down totally for parts so that it is never seen again. These 'hot spots', I might add, typically in other cities, include newer suburbs in my electorate of Kingston. They also include public car parks at such places as train stations. Very many people in my electorate drive their cars to the train, park them in a public car park and then take the train to work because it is a very considerable problem to find a car park in Adelaide. Those people are not only at risk but also, as I am well aware, have had experiences of their cars being taken, never to be seen again, or being taken by a joy-rider and being damaged. This question of organised car theft rings is now obviously far and away the main category for concern, along with people who put in fraudulent claims for cars which either are never recovered or become a total loss. The typical joy- rider takes a car which one gets back in a day or two. It may be somewhat damaged, but at least it is usually repairable. The cases which really cause the rises in premiums are the ones in which the car is never seen again. These gangs change the identity of the car, take off the compliance plates, scrub off the engine number or dismantle the engine for parts. Some of these professionals are totally undeterred by the locking systems on cars at present. In fact, recently there was a much publicised demonstration in Sydney. Several late model cars were placed in a ballroom and some people who had the skills of professional thieves were let loose on them. They took 20 seconds to get into a locked car and 40 seconds to drive the car away. The present locks are a problem only for joy-riders; they are certainly not a problem for people in the professional category. In South Australia three organised car rings have been identified and smashed by the activities of the police in recent years. My understanding is that, when these three major car gangs were broken, over $250,000 worth of cars was recovered and the offenders were identified and caught. The individual State police forces, including that in South Australia, are doing a very good job, but the motion moved by the honourable member for McMillan is directed to making sure that this problem is treated with higher priority and on a national basis. Those are the dimensions of the problem and now it is really a question of finding some solution to it. Amongst those solutions, of course, one of the main things is greater public awareness. An extraordinary number of cars are stolen because they are simply left in the street unlocked, in a high proportion of cases, nearly 10 per cent, with the keys left in them. So, perhaps the best advice one can give to anybody who wants to tackle this problem in respect of his or her own car is simply to lock the car or put it in a garage and keep the garage locked. Another piece of advice would be to avoid the 'hot spots' which have been identified although that is quite difficult to do if one is dependent on one's car to get to the train. But I must say that the police, having identified the areas where cars are at most risk, change their patrolling patterns. According to my information, the biggest, single effect that they have had, in South Australia at any rate, is by gathering intelligence and working out where to patrol most. One aspect, as my colleague has mentioned, is better security systems on the cars themselves. This means electronic ignition locks and better locks on steering wheels and doors. Of course, it will cost something to have these, but my information is that the cost is very marginal and is certainly a great deal less than the very steep rise in insurance costs over recent years. But I do not believe that the car companies will do this until the problem is heightened and made to seem to them more important than obviously it is now. This debate is concerned more with methods other than ones which can be taken by individuals. The first and perhaps the most important outcome might be to arrive at agreement between the States and the Federal Government on a standard system of vehicle identification numbering. At the moment most manufacturers have their own systems of vehicle identification numbering-VIN, as it is called. But what really needs to happen is for this system to be made a national system which applies to all vehicles so that it is much easier to check. It should also cover not just the body shell and the engine, but desirably other components as well. Other parts of the car should be made easily identifiably so that people will not be found receiving stolen parts and so that it is much harder for those parts to be stolen and subsequently resold. A second desirable aspect would be a national stolen vehicle register system. When a vehicle is stolen the information is punched into a computer and that information is immediately available to the police forces of all States. There is a considerable degree of co-ordination already, but it is not perfect. Such a system as a national stolen vehicle register would assist this exchange of information and assist in catching offenders. A third aspect might well be something in the nature of differential insurance premiums. Why should the person who takes care of his or her car, who parks it in a garage at night and who fits a lock to it be paying the same premium as other people who do not take the same degree of care? That may not be possible in all instances and one would not want to penalise particular classes of people , but it would give a reward for prudence. Fourthly-and this was mentioned by my colleague-there needs to be closer co- operation between the police and the reregistration authorities. At the moment this happens to a considerable extent at the State level, but it needs to be upgraded much more on a national basis. Many of the cars taken by organised rings are in fact transported across the border. Then they are given a new coat of paint, their engine numbers are taken off, different compliance plates are fitted and they are sold within a few days. This work needs to be given a much higher priority. One needs also to look at the kind of people who steal these cars. I noticed that one young man, an 18-year-old, was charged a short time ago with stealing 99 cars. One needs to identify that sort of person and nip their activities in the bud. In fact, some people take cars with such a lack of seriousness that they are caught by quite amusing means. There is the perfectly true story of the three joy-riders in Melbourne who had so much fun once they had stolen a car that they took pictures of themselves by the car with a camera they found in the car. Having done that, they left the camera in the car. The police came along, developed the photographs and caught them very rapidly. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a much more serious problem than that. For that reason I support the motion and the efforts of the part of this House to give a greater priority and a greater sense of urgency to a very distressing problem in Australia. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(1.22) —I will not take as long as the previous two speakers. I enter the debate in a strictly bipartisan manner. I will break down the boundaries of State rights on this one because I believe that it is a national problem and that we all should get involved. Australia used to be called the lucky country, but, believe me, it has become a little sordid in certain regards, especially because of home thefts. I think most of us saw the 60 Minutes program last week which indicated the anxiety and the problems created as a result of home thefts where elderly people had been robbed of all their priceless possessions, had lost everything as a result of certain actions by certain people in our community. I think we all have to face up to the fact that we have in our community a dirty lot who seem to take everything for granted; if they want something, they will take it. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, will agree with me that unfortunately there are two growth industries that neither his Government nor my Party wants to be involved in; that is, the growth industries of vehicle theft and home thefts. The situation has become completely outrageous. I am pleased that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) has brought up this subject for debate. The cheek of somebody saying that the national Parliament should not get involved in it. Of course we should get involved. Of course we should start telling people about what is happening in our beautiful, lucky Australia that has become, as I mentioned, a little tainted as a result. There was a very good article by David Robertson, the motoring writer for the Sydney Morning Herald. I thought it was an excellent article. It really indicated a few facts that I was completely unaware of. In Australia today there is a robbery in a home every four minutes. It is nice to see some people from Tasmania here today, incidentally. As an island Tasmania is sometimes insulated to a degree against some of the things that occur on the mainland. It is outrageous to think that every four minutes a house is broken into and things are taken-priceless things-and sometimes to the ruination of the families involved. Every eight minutes a car is stolen in Australia. Every eight minutes! Really it has just got completely out of hand. The National Roads and Motorists' Association, the motoring organisation in New South Wales, has indicated certain things that should be done. Sometimes we all become very careless with our motorcars. The first big investment that most people make in their lifetime is a house and the second is a car. I was in the motor game for about 15 years and I found that some people think more of their motor car than of their house and their wife. That aside, they really love their motor car and will do everything in their power to make it nice, neat and attractive. They will put floor carpets in; they will put seat covers in; they will do everything to that motor car. Then they leave it unlocked. We all need to educate ourselves and, I think, the manufacturers. We have talked about the Commodore. David Robertson mentions the Commodore. It is a very good motor car, but it is so indistinctive. If one owns a red Commodore, for example, one finds it very difficult to find the car in a carpark, because there are so many of them. Ten or 12 could be stolen from that carpark and nobody would be the wiser. It is a massive problem. I fully support the motion. I hope to God that we can get a little stricter law enforcement. Incidentally, the stealing of motor vehicles has become organised crime. It is done not just for the parts anymore, not just for the joy-rides; it is done for the purpose of transferring those motor cars to other people at a great profit. The thieves in New South Wales are set up and geared to do that very thing. I think the honourable member mentioned that about 56,000 motor vehicles are stolen each year in New South Wales. It has just got completely out of hand. I support the honourable member for McMillan. I was very pleased to enter the debate briefly to give support. I believe it should be a national problem, with all States involved. If we can bring down legislation hopefully to overcome this problem, I support it. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(1.27) —The theft of motor vehicles has become a major growth industry in Australia today and there is an urgent need for governments to take urgent action to combat this massive crime industry. I strongly support the motion before the House and call on the Government to respond quickly to establish a national data base to combat the disposal of stolen vehicles. The theft of motor vehicles is a growing problem but is one that is not easily resolved. I commend the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) for moving this motion and the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) for seconding it. It shows their interest in matters where ordinary members of the community are missing out. I must say that I am also pleased that this matter crosses party political boundaries. I see that three members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety are here adding their bit to the debate this afternoon. They are the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby ), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). This issue has been discussed both at recent police Ministers conferences and at meetings of the Australian Transport Advisory Council and has been referred to the Premiers Conference. Really, it is at the Premiers Conference that work can be done to achieve a national attack on the problem on all fronts. We need that co-ordination by a national government pulling in very necessarily the State governments who are on the spot and who are the people to deal with this particular problem-but with that national co-ordination. There is a great need for such a national attack because it is only as the police forces, monitoring organisations and insurance companies work together that any real progress can be made; and progress must be made. It is estimated that in New South Wales alone a theft occurs every eight minutes, while in Victoria the figure is a theft every 28 minutes year round. Those are mind boggling statistics, right here in Australia. Nationally this represents an illegal industry worth $200m per annum and involving thousands of people. Insurance companies paid out $80m in car theft claims nationally last year. In support of the motion for the establishment of such a national data base, I will say that it is nearly impossible at the moment to obtain accurate, up-to-date figures on the numbers of cars these enormous figures represent. The most accurate estimates indicate that 70,000 vehicles were stolen in Australia in 1982, but when it is remembered that the industry is growing at an estimated rate of 20 per cent per year, the figures for 1982 become little more than rough indicators of the problem. What is desperately needed is an effective package of counter-measures to fight this crime. Obviously, the most important first step is an upgrading of police information systems to handle the rapid exchange of data on a national level. In this regard, I believe proposals are emerging for a national police register of stolen vehicles. These moves are to be applauded and encouraged. In line with this there is a great need for closer co-operation between police and registration authorities in gaining expeditious access to the necessary data. There is a need for a major publicity effort on the part of motoring organisations. In this regard, I would like to commend the National Roads and Motorists' Association of New South Wales for the new 'Stop a Thief' campaign. It is community services of this kind that heighten people's awareness of the problems of widespread theft of motor vehicles, which goes some of the way to beating the thieves. An area of urgent attention is that of built-in vehicle security. Honourable members may have heard of the new Commodore released only last month that was purported to contain the latest anti-thief technology available. Yet it caused a thief little trouble when he stole it from a Sydney street. Manufacturers must be encouraged to plan anti-thief devices that realistically prevent entry and removal of vehicles. With more than 70,000 vehicles stolen every year in Australia, they can do no less. Police authorities talk of three major types of car theft. The first, and by far the most common, is simple joy-riding. This destructive pastime accounts for 85 per cent to 90 per cent of all reported thefts. Usually involving amateur thieves and first offenders, joy-riding nevertheless breeds owner carelessness. Approximately 33 per cent of cars stolen were left unlocked and 80 per cent had keys in the ignition. The New South Wales 'Stop a Thief' campaign and other State campaigns are going some of the way to reducing the major contribution owner carelessness plays in joy-riding car theft. The second major type of car theft is done by professionals. The aim is to steal specific makes of cars which then are either stripped for parts and components or rebuilt into cars with new identities, including new paintwork and registration, engine and chassis numbers. Police estimate it takes professional workshops less than two days to rebuild a stolen car and that the average illegal workshop will make up to $1m per year for a four-man operation. So here is another huge area of criminal activity which should be investigated and which is flourishing alongside the actual thieving of the cars. The third major type of car theft is the theft of specific cars for specific clients. These cars, mostly Australian-made luxury sedans, are usually never recovered. The motion before the House addresses these last two types of theft involving highly professional and well-organised thieves with well-equipped workshops for the processing of stolen vehicles. Until now little has been done on a national level to co-ordinate the resources of police, motoring organisations and insurance companies in fighting this national problem. In many areas pertaining not only to the particular problem to hand but also to road safety generally there is an urgent need to co-ordinate data on a national level . At the moment it is impossible to get up-to-date statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics because, for instance, in the areas of road trauma, number of accidents and reasons for accidents, it is left to individual State police departments to provide that information to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. If the police department is really on the ball, that information is forthcoming and the Bureau is able to give some sort of picture as a basis for planning in the area of roads generally and of transport in Australia. But if even one State police department drags its feet a little, the result is that it becomes impossible for the national Bureau to compile statistics on a national level to underline the specific needs arising in different parts of the country. Therefore, a person who wishes to plan on different aspects pertaining to roads finds it impossible to get those national figures. I think a majorcourwe which we must take is to ensure thatany national database becomes ongoing. Certain things have been done, and I would like to commend the National Office of Road Safety for its part in getting such information together. But the motion today highlights the absolute need, in a wide number of areas, for access to such data. As I said previously, until now not enough has been done on a national level to co-ordinate the resources of police, motoring organisations and insurance companies in fighting this growing national problem. Therefore, I strongly support the motion calling for a national data base with a rapid exchange of data on stolen vehicles so that the disposal of stolen vehicles is made more difficult. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(1.37) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. I think it is a great opportunity for the Opposition to show that we work in a bi- partisan way on many occasions. I always think it a great pity that the people of Australia are not aware how often in this House the Opposition supports the Government on so many things. The newspapers make one think that we are always in conflict, but I would say that in the majority of cases we agree. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, I am very pleased to support this motion and also to endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) who, of course, is the Chairperson of the Road Safety Committee. It is very important that we in Australia start to look towards co-ordinating all these statistics on the problem of stolen motor cars, because it is a national problem and it is something that we need a little more uniformity on. It is very important that we work towards a system whereby there is a rapid exchange of data across State boundaries. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) is to be commended for bringing this matter before the House, because it is an extremely important problem. As honourable members are probably aware, a system is developing to some extent between the three eastern States, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, whereby there is an interchange of some information on stolen cars. However, it is not foolproof. In fact it has a lot of shortcomings. The fact that the number of cars being stolen and driven across the border is still so large is a fair indication that it is not working as well as we would like it to. One of the great things about organising a uniform data base for stolen cars is that it should be relatively easy, and I hope that when the matter is taken to the Premiers Conference it will be dealt with very quickly and organised so that there should not be much delay in getting this system under way. However, there are other problems with some of the other States, including the State that the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) comes from. In Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland, there are occasions when a car can be registered without a policeman even seeing the car. I think that in South Australia one can register a car for 28 days by mail. This is an additional problem that hopefully the Government of South Australia will address. As has been pointed out to the House already, the size of the problem is enormous. It is estimated that it is costing Australia $200m a year. As reported in the Australian on 21 May 1983, one in every 10 cars registered is stolen- rather an alarming thought. As has already been mentioned in the debate, over three-quarters of these cars are taken by joy-riders and generally returned to the owner somewhat the worse for wear. Nonetheless, they are returned. Furthermore 2 per cent are found as burnt-out shells. The problem that this motion is more concerned about is that organised thieves account for 21 per cent of thefts. Ten out of every 100 are stripped for parts or accessories and 11 out of 100 are never found. I have had an experience similar to that of the honourable member for McMillan, having locked my keys in my car on more than one occasion. I agree with him; it is very easy to break in, even for a rank amateur like myself. Furthermore, I have had someone leave a car for me somewhere. It was not locked, I admit, but it was left for me; and they took the keys with them. I found also that it is not very hard to start a car without the keys. Mrs Darling —All you need is a bobby pin. Mr HAWKER —Yes, it is quite easy. So there is a design problem. We always have to face up to the cost of trying to make these things foolproof. But I suppose that in that situation I was rather grateful for the fact that it was not too hard to start the car. I also remind honourable members that in any little country town well over 90 per cent of cars would not be locked and the number of cars with keys still in them would probably be similar. Yet I suspect that, because of the nature of small country towns, the number of cars actually stolen is very low. There are several ways, of course, of reducing this problem of stolen cars, and I guess most of them have been touched on. The question of door locks and better ignition locks has already been mentioned. There was rather an amusing story in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 March. Mr David Robertson, who has already been referred to in this debate, went to drive a new Holden Calais, which is supposed to have the latest anti-theft devices in it. After he had done his test drive, he returned it to the General Motors-Holden's Sydney office at Edgecliff. Unfortunately the office was locked; so he locked the car, left the keys in the mailbox for the public relations manager, and left the car overnight. Well, it was not there in the morning. So there is still quite a major problem there. We have to look at every avenue for solving this problem. Of course, as has already been mentioned, a sizable number of people do not lock their cars. In fact, as reported again in this article in the Australian, a third of the cars stolen are not even locked. Forty per cent are taken from the street and of 8 out of every 100, would you believe, still have the keys in the lock. The first thing needed is a bit of public awareness of the importance of locking cars. That would certainly stop a lot of the joy-riders. Another point that has already been touched on, of course, is the lack of proper staffing for the police force. I think it was mentioned that in New South Wales the Criminal Investigation Board motor squad which investigates all offences relating to motor vehicles consists of only 20 men. But the number of vehicles stolen has increased without a corresponding increase in the motor squad. In 1978 only 9.7 per cent of total recorded thefts resulted in charges being laid. In 1973 the figure was 17.4 per cent. In other words, we have a gross shortage of staff in the police force working on this matter. That is something that we could draw to the attention of the respective State governments. Another matter touched on by the honourable member for McMillan is penalties. The penalty for breaking and entering a house and thieving something of similar value to a car is a lot higher than the penalty for thieving a car, and I think this is a social attitude that has to be changed a bit. Law enforcement agencies have to realise that we have a similar sized problem in relation to cars and the courts should be persuaded that a similar sort of penalty should be handed out. Of course, the motion draws our attention to the fact that we need a proper national data base for stolen cars, and this is probably one of the most important parts of it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It is now 1.45 p.m. In accordance with standing order 109, as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Hurford) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of Notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2.00 p.m. Mr HAWKER —I will be very brief now. I think the most important advantage of this uniform data base system is that it is going to make it a lot more difficult to dispose of a stolen car. We should not lose sight of that simple fact. Another point touched on before is the effect on insurance premiums. It has been estimated that the cost in increased insurance premiums to every motorist of the large scale theft of cars is about $30 per car per year. If a few more people were made aware of this, they might take a bit more trouble to make it harder to have their cars stolen. What is more, the general community would also insist that there be greater public awareness. In conclusion, I would say that this is a major problem which should be tackled on all fronts. There should be greater public awareness through a proper education program. The motion moved by the honourable member for McMillan is a very important one. The idea to co- ordinate the State data banks and establish a uniform system of recording stolen cars is very worth while and it is with great pleasure that I support this motion. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(1.47) —I am pleased to join this debate. It has been a bi- partisan debate on an important issue. I support the motion moved by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) that the Government should establish a uniform system with the States for the rapid exchange of data on stolen vehicles so that the disposal of those vehicles would be made much more difficult. I was very interested in the comments of all the speakers, particularly the earlier comments of the seconder of this motion. He referred to the article in the Age yesterday, Wednesday, 4 April. That article was headed: ' Plenty of debate, but on what . . . and why?' Robert Haupt was basically arguing that this motion was in some sense a waste of the time of the national Parliament and that we should be using our time discussing many more important issues. The issue that he mentioned was the Asianistion of Australia. I just point out that I believe that both issues, of course, are important. The issue we are discussing today is a very important one. The dimension of the problem is significant. Some 70,000 vehicles throughout Australia are stolen annually. It is a growth industry; that figure is increasing by more than 20 per cent per annum and it causes severe consequences for many groups in our community. One of those consequences-increased insurance premiums-has a particularly severe effect on our young people, and this motion is particularly important to them. It is virtually impossible now for a young person 18, 19 or 20, in fact in many cases of any age under that cut-off level of 25, to insure a car; it has simply become too expensive. One of the reasons for that, of course, is the accident rate, but another very important reason is the high level of motor vehicle theft. For that reason it is a significant topic for this Parliament. I would make one more point briefly about the argument of Robert Haupt that we should not be discussing this matter. As I say, he referred to the question of Asianisation and immigration. I would just point out that there are in the Parliament opportunities to debate that issue. Indeed, in just this session of the Parliament there has been such debate on a number of occasions. There is provision through discussions of matters of public importance. Only this week we were discussing the Citizenship Act. There was a very positive opportunity, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) acknowledges, for an exchange of views on that issue. I just make that point clear. I would like particularly to point out the extent of this problem in Victoria. March edition of Royalauto, the magazine of the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, pinpointed the extent of the problem of motor vehicle theft in Victoria. It says that in Victoria last year a vehicle was stolen every 28 minutes, that most of the 18,852 vehicles stolen were recovered but that 13 per cent of them have not been found. The article goes on to say that the Victoria Police in particular have been conscious of the relationship between car theft and other crimes, particularly armed robbery, burglary and insurance fraud. Professional thieves, of course, can steal a car in a matter of seconds and in less than two days a car can be completely different. It can be repainted with a different registration number, engine number, chassis number and compliance plate and can be sold again on the market. It is very difficult for police to detect that type of theft. That is the major problem in this area. It is very difficult to know exactly what happens to a stolen vehicle after it has been stolen and where it goes. That comes, of course, to the point of this motion, that if we can establish with all the States a uniform system of exchanging that data, the disposal of vehicles will be made much more difficult. It is interesting that the RACV mentions in the article that Footscray was the worst hit area in Victoria and that last year 540 vehicles were reported stolen from that area. Another hot spot, of course, was Elizabeth Street, in the city. It is pleasing that the motor vehicle theft rate last year did not rise to perhaps the same extent it has in past years, and I think that is a compliment to the efforts of the Victoria police to reduce the extent of car theft and to catch those who have indulged in it. The seconder of this motion said that many of our cars had been badly designed in the past and that that was a positive incentive to theft. I note that the Bulletin of 20 September 1983 listed the number of vehicles stolen. The table shows that the vehicle most commonly stolen is the Holden Monaro. The second on the list is the Holden Statesman and the third is the Holden Premier, followed by all models of MGs other Holdens, Datsuns, Mazdas, Holden Kingswood, Holden Sunbird, and so on. That is an interesting comment because I believe motor vehicle manufacturers should be taking extra care to ensure that cars are more difficult to steal. There has been some comment in this debate today about the new Holden Commodore. The advertisements have said that its anti-theft devices have been greatly improved. I am a little distressed to hear from some of the speakers that perhaps they are not as great as they should be. But I think it is a compliment to Holden, and particularly to the Commodore, that the manufacturers themselves are making efforts to improve security. In summary, with regard to the exchange of information between the States, I think a number of points are relevant. Firstly, in terms of the police and their activities, the police would say, of course, that this exchange of information is an important if not essential part of any package to reduce the incidence of theft. It would assist the police in crime intelligence. It would enable much greater exchange of information on all aspects of their work and, of course, it would greatly assist in the recovery of vehicles. I think there must also be closer co-operation between police and registering authorities. This relates particularly to reregistration. That is only one part of the stolen vehicles problem, but data from New South Wales indicates that each year there are about 124,000 preregistration engine number checks and of those about 140 are found to be stolen vehicles. So we do not really know how many stolen vehicles get through the registration system. Again, this motion before the House today would greatly assist in that. As has been noted, this issue requires a Premiers Conference, I believe, to give impetus to it on a national basis. The Government will certainly be liaising closely at a Federal level to achieve this. We will also be liaising very closely with motoring organisations and insurance companies and, as the honourable member for Lilley and Chairman of the Road Safety Committee has noted , in this context the Government sees a broad range of policies which could be part of a package to reduce motor vehicle theft. Obviously, we need that national register of stolen vehicles. We need more co-operation between police and registration authorities. We could look at prospective vehicle purchaser checks. There could also be a major publicity effort on the part of motoring organisations. Finally, we should not forget the direct involvement or even possible financial support of the insurance industry. As I have said, this is a very big issue. It is a $200m industry, if one wants to put it in those terms. Seventy thousand cars are stolen annually. As I said, it has particular consequences for our young people. many of whom now have to pay $600, $700 or $800 to insure a car. One of the main reasons for that high cost is the level of motor vehicle theft. I will conclude there. I believe that my colleague the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) has some constructive remarks to make on this issue. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(1.58) —I think most people would recognise that this is one of those thoroughly bipartisian motions. There is not likely to be any demurring on that fact. The data has been given. It is a very horrific picture. Car theft has now become one of the most nefarious industries. I just want to make a comment. As well as the problem of trying to insure against theft once they have lost their cars, young people have another problem. Many of them put so much into a vehicle; they expend a lot of their pride and their time and effort. The young kids actually keep themselves out of trouble by doing this. But if the stolen car is stripped, they find themselves not able to recoup anywhere near the value of the vehicle. I remember one young fellow who came to see me, a young fellow who really did not have a lot of friends. He had spent a lot of time just doing up his car. It was taken away, stripped and damaged beyond repair; and the young fellow then suffered a loss of some thousands of dollars. There was absolutely no way that he was going to be able to recoup that . It gives me a great deal of pleasure to add my support to this proposition. I think that the House would do well to support it. Certainly I add my support to this motion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr SINCLAIR —Can the Minister for Defence advise the House why he said on 1 March there was no policy on the HMS Invincible dry-docking when the document he tabled in this Parliament last Friday referred specifically to the 1957 United States-Australia agreement to which I alerted him and to the former Government's guidelines on visits of nuclear-powered ships in relation to this issue? Did the Minister deliberately mislead the House, or did he just fail to read the document before tabling it? Mr SCHOLES —I think even the right honourable gentleman would be aware that in 1956, when the document he referred to was negotiated, there were no operational nuclear vessels in any navy. The terms of visits of nuclear ships were in fact negotiated some years after that and would not have been negotiated had it not been found necessary to do so. The right honourable gentleman brought into this Parliament changes in those terms in late 1982. I suggest that the right honourable gentleman is not only clutching at straws but also trying to dig up from the dead agreements to try to substantiate arguments that are incapable of substantiation. Mr BILNEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I preface my question by noting that my electorate of Kingston is rapidly becoming the centre of Australia's innovative and expanding orchid culture and export industry. Is the Minister aware of rumours circulating in the orchid industry that the proclamation of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act will result in massive increases in charges on export shipments of orchids to a level of around $56 per shipment? Would charges at that level kill stone dead a promising export-oriented sunrise industry? Can the Minister outline the true position to the House? Mr COHEN —The orchid growers of Australia will be forever indebted to the honourable member for Kingston for his role in this matter. I was not aware of his long term interest in flowers, but he matches the Minister for Territories and Local Government in his concern for the flora of Australia. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species is an international agreement aimed at regulating trade in endangered and potentially endangered species, including orchids. The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 will give effect to Australian obligations under CITES and will be proclaimed on 1 May 1984. Trade in artificially propagated orchids can assist in the conservation of wild populations by reducing the need to harvest wild plants. Special arrangements have been made to assist growers regularly importing or exporting artificially propagated plants. Rather than requiring permits for individual shipments, an authorisation can be issued covering shipments of artificially propagated plants for six months. A $14 fee will be levied for the six-month period, not on individual shipments. Trade in tissue cultures, seed and cut flowers of artificially propagated orchid species not considered endangered has been exempted from control. Finally, I pay tribute to the honourable member for Kingston, who I suspect may well be known in the House in the future as 'the little flower'. Mr WHITE —I refer the Minister for Defence to his Department's submission last month to the defence sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which stated on page 12 that 'our presently approved surveillance capability is broadly adequate for current needs'. I refer the Minister also to the comments two days ago by the Chief of Defence Force Staff that his greatest concern was 'the fact that we do not know what is going on in our own air space in many parts of Australia'. I ask the Minister: What is the reason for this clear conflict of views? What will the Government be doing to overcome the problems outlined by the Chief of Defence Force Staff? Mr SCHOLES —Firstly, the situation in relation to surveillance is one which has concerned both this Government and the previous Government. We have been investing substantial sums of money in the development of the Jindalee over-the- horizon radar capability and are acquiring additional equipment to rectify deficiencies which have existed for a number of years. Those deficiencies have cumulated because of the neglect of the previous Government, and because of the failure of that Government to meet its obligations under the Defence White Paper , which it brought into this Parliament in 1976 and then completely refused to fund so that the commitments which it made to the defence of Australia could not be met. To illustrate to the House just how serious the depletion of funds was when the right honourable member for New England was in charge of the defence policy of this country, I point out that over the last three years, in real terms, defence expenditure increased by slightly over $325m. Fifty per cent of the three-year increase took place in the first Budget of this Government. During the period when the right honourable member for New England was the Minister, he in fact diverted funds-- Mr Sinclair —Because of the Invincible; you know that. Mr SCHOLES —The right honourable member has done a terrible job regarding the defence of Australia; he should not do the same job now with his own Party. The former Minister in fact diverted funds from the defence capital equipment programs to meet ongoing current expenses which are normally met, and should have been met, from the additional estimates provided in that year to meet pay rises which were substantial because of the past neglect of his Government in not dealing with them over a seven-year period. I think that the House should understand that, although the Opposition now knows a lot about the problems of defence, it did little or nothing when it was in government to overcome those problems. Some most ridiculous matters have been raised in this Parliament over the last week in respect of defence policies. The Leader of the National Party has even cited an agreement which came into force before any nuclear ships were operational in the United States Navy as an agreement which supersedes agreements which were made by his Party later and which left out key elements of those relationships. We have also had honourable members opposite-and the honourable member for McPherson in particular-complain about the lack of helicopters available to the Operational Deployment Force. Mr White —That's right. Mr SCHOLES —I will tell the honourable member what the score was on that. The Operational Deployment Force had four helicopters in 1982 and the previous Government reduced the number by one. In November last year we increased the number by one, back to four. We are currently planning to put another two helicopters into that area in order to provide some more operational capacity. The previous Government's contribution was to reduce the number, not to increase it. Mr GRIFFITHS —I draw the attention of the Special Minister of State to the fact that submissions are being received by the Australian Electoral Commission relating to a proposed Federal electoral redistribution. Can the Minister inform the House of the progress of this matter? Mr YOUNG —I am advised by the Australian Electoral Commission that everything is going smoothly. The only hitch to its original plans was the election in New South Wales which held up the submission phase. The following dates have been set for the close of submissions for the electoral redistribution: In the Australian Capital Territory they are already closed. My colleague the honourable member for Canberra tells me that the maps and the submissions that have come in are already being viewed by the public. In New South Wales it is hoped that submissions will close by 30 April; in Victoria, today, 5 April; in Queensland, 5 April; in Western Australia, 12 April; in South Australia, 13 April; and in Tasmania, also 12 April. All these submissions will be available to the public on the day after the closing of those submissions in each of the States. The comments by the public, which will be available on those submissions , would then run for another two weeks, making the close off dates for the comments on the submissions as follows: New South Wales, 14 May; Victoria, 19 April; Queensland, 19 April; Western Australia, 26 April; South Australia, 27 April; Tasmania, 26 April; and in the Australian Capital Territory, Monday, 16 April. Everything is going as I told the Parliament earlier. Mr Hodgman —Only 14 days! Mr YOUNG —These are not the final comments to be made; these are the comments to be made on the first submissions. There is another opportunity down the road for final comments to be made when the commissioners put up their maps in June or July. Although the Electoral Commission has said that perhaps we should be guarded in some ways about the timetable I gave the Parliament earlier and about the completion time, there is no reason to believe that all the final redistribution will not have taken place by the end of September this year. Mr SINCLAIR —I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Defence. Is the Minister aware that the exchange of notes of 1957 was reaffirmed in 1963 to take account of the launching of the nuclear powered vessels the USS Long Beach in 1959 and the USS Enterprise in 1960? Why did he assert that the exchange of notes did not take account of nuclear powered vessels and provide for suitable docking facilities in Australia? Mr SCHOLES —I am aware that the right honourable gentleman's experience in matters legal is far greater than mine. I suggest that, even with my knowledge of legal matters, an agreement which was subsequently negotiated and which has been presented to this House since that date has a force of law which supersedes that of an earlier agreement which it replaced. Mr KEOGH —Has the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations been drawn to recent criticisms of the Government's progress in implementing the community employment program? Can he inform the House of the Government's job creation objectives under this community employment program for 1983-84 with particular reference to whether these criticisms are justified? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of criticisms that have been made by the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the National Party that the community employment program will fall short by some 30,000 in the number of jobs that will be created in 1983-84 and that the Government, therefore, is ignoring the unemployed. These comments demonstrate an appalling ignorance of the way in which the community employment program is being introduced and a remarkable inability to understand plain English. Contrary to the uninformed remarks of the Leader of the National Party, 40,000 jobs has always been the target in 1983-84-the first year of operation of the program. It has been made quite clear that 70,000 jobs was the target for CEP during an entire year of the program functioning at a fully operational level-I ask the right honourable member for New England to take note of the words 'at a fully operational level'-not the number of jobs we would achieve in the first year of operation when the program had just been put into place. We always planned to build up gradually to a fully operational level by the last quarter of this financial year and that is what is happening. All this was made quite clear in a Press statement by me on 1 August last year when the program was formally launched. Indeed, it is remarkable that the Deputy Leader of the National Party quoted from that Press release when making his criticisms of me recently. He quoted this part of the Press statement: Federal allocations under CEP will begin gradually during 1983-84 until the program becomes fully operational in the latter half of the financial year. When it is fully operational, CEP is expected to create up to 70,000 new jobs nationally in a year on worthwhile community projects. I would have thought that it was fairly obvious from that statement, quoted by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, that it was not our intention in 1983- 84 to create 70,000 jobs, but rather that that was what we would create when the program ran for a full year at a fully operational level. Just in case that was not entirely clear to the Deputy Leader of the National Party, if he had bothered to turn the page of this Press statement and look at what was on the next page he would have found that this was there to be seen: This would mean that, in total, up to 40,000 new employment opportunities would be created under CEP during 1983-84. I think it is quite clear from that that the criticisms from the National Party are hopelessly misinformed. There has never been any doubt what the reality is. The reality is that we would create 40,000 jobs this year. As we said in that Press statement, from which the Deputy Leader of the National Party quoted, 70, 000 jobs is what we would create in a full year when the scheme was fully operational. I would like to inform the House that, as at 16 March, over 5,830 projects have been approved or recommended involving more than 36,500 jobs. The community employment program is going very well and on target. I suggest to the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the National Party that they take a remedial course in English. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Finance, relates to the apparent allowance in the 1984-85 Estimates for a tax cut. I refer to the fact that by mid-1984 the average wage earner will be over $17 a week worse off because of the Government's high tax policies. Is it a fact that this year's long promised tax cuts will give back to the average wage earner no more than $5 of the $17 already taken away? Is it a fact that the allowance in the Estimates for a tax cut is less than the increase in Government revenue from yesterday's 4 .1 per cent national wage increase? Mr KEATING —Let us get this matter straight. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were saying that there should be no wage increase. They were saying that the 4.1 per cent wage increase is an atrocity. Let us just get this straight. Yesterday they were saying that there should be no increase in wages but today they are complaining about the tax take . Is that right? Is that what they are on about? Yesterday they were saying that there should be no increase in wages and today they are crying crocodile tears for the wage and salary earners of Australia. I will let the members of the public make their judgment about all that. As far as the tax take goes, let me just make this point: Of course, if there is an increase in wages the incomes of some people will be inflated into other brackets of the tax scales. However, I have been advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that, as a result of yesterday's increase, that figure will be of the order of 210,000. Six million wage and salary earners will not be affected by the change but 210,000 will, which is very much a minority of people. Of course, only a part of their incomes will be taxed at the 46 per cent rate. As the Government has said on a number of occasions, to the extent that we have the appropriate degree of Budget flexibility the Government will be doing its best to provide meaningful tax relief in the forthcoming Budget. That will, of course, look at the repair of the situation which we have seen as a result of yesterday's increase. I will now deal with the nonsense figure of $17, the banality which the Leader of the Opposition has been throwing around for some weeks now. There is a revenue implication in that of about $4 billion per annum. I wonder how the Opposition justifies its call for a tax cut of that order of magnitude. If the Leader of the Opposition believes that there is a $17 disparity, is he advocating a tax cut of $4 billion, which is what the $17 would equate to? Does he want to increase the deficit by $4 billion? Does he want to cut pensions by $ 4 billion? Is the Opposition willing to admit that its tax claims are total nonsense, which of course they are. We often see misrepresentation of tax changes. Indeed, Mr Risstrom yesterday did his usual number of getting it wrong. In the Melbourne Herald in particular yesterday all those tax scales were wrong. I say to the newspapers advisedly that, before they take Mr Risstrom's tax scales aboard again, they should pay some attention to their accuracy. I conclude by saying that the Government's economic policy is running very much on track. As to the 4.1 per cent increase granted yesterday, the Arbitration Commission said: The granting of the 4.1 per cent claim in the context of the principle is consistent with a continued fall in the inflation rate in 1984 and a continued improvement in Australia's relative inflation rate, as predicted by the OECD. I have nothing to add to that. The tax consequences of some people moving into the 46 per cent bracket will be addressed by the Government in the course of the Budget. Mr PUNCH —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the Amnesty International report entitled 'Torture in the Eighties'? Amongst the countries investigated, the report deals explicitly with our near neighbours, the Philippines and Indonesia. What positive policies is the Government pursuing to help alleviate the state of affairs mentioned in the report and what further action is likely to be taken? Mr HAYDEN —The report of Amnesty International, 'Torture in the Eighties', illustrates the extent of resort to torture in many countries in the world. In fact, more than 90 countries are covered by the report. The report was released even date, and a covering Press statement outlining the Australian Government's responses generally to this matter has also been released to coincide with the release of the report. It is correct that in our region a number of countries have been identified as countries which have resorted to torture in certain circumstances, for instance, Indonesia. A condensation of the report points out that there have been ' persistent reports of torture and ill-treatment of people arrested on suspicion of belonging to groups opposed to the Government and occasional reports relating to ordinary criminal suspects despite introduction of a new code of criminal procedure'. The summary says much more than that but time does not permit me to go through those matters. In respect of the Philippines, it refers to 'credible reports of systematic torture received by Amnesty, particularly since increased involvement of armed forces in counter insurgency operations'. Amnesty criticises the use of undisclosed and unauthorised interrogation centres known euphemistically as 'safe houses' in which torture and ill-treatment have occurred. A number of other countries in our region are addressed in this report . This Government, as with previous governments of various political complexion, wherever cases of abuse of human rights have been brought to its notice has raised such matters with the respective governments concerned. We have done this on many occasions and we will continue to do so. To the extent that we maintain a credible and influential relationship with countries in our region, we are in a position to use that credibility and that influence positively, where appropriate, on such matters. Yesterday I gave an indication of some such instances. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the expressed view of the present Attorney-General that politicians should be slow to take private defamation actions, and also to the widely held view that the proposed uniform libel laws should protect the media from the indiscriminate use of writs aimed at stopping proper discussion of matters of public interest. I refer the Prime Minister also to the view of the Western Australian Labor Premier, Mr Burke, that politicians should not use libel actions as a means of bolstering their bank accounts. I ask the Prime Minister how many writs he has issued against the media since assuming office, leaving aside his legion of prior writs? How many writs have been subsequently withdrawn or settled and how many writs are still hanging over the media outlets or journalists concerned? Mr HAWKE —I think the current position is that I have one alive. Mr FREE —What action does the Minister for Administrative Services intend to take in relation to the Australian Heritage Commission's inclusion of the University and Schools Club building in Phillip Street, Sydney, on the register of the National Estate? How would the listing affect the proposed joint Commonwealth Club development? Mr JOHN BROWN —If there is one area of life where this Government can hold its head up very high it is in the preservation of anything that is worth while, be it environmental or historical. I point out as instances of our concern the absolutely splendid work done by our Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in the preservation of the south west wilderness area in Tasmania and his great work in the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef, to say nothing of the Kakadu National Park. I inform the House that consideration is presently being given by the Government to the restoration of a very ancient and historic building in Fremantle. It is the Government's intention to preserve the historic portscape of Fremantle and to make a Customs house. Mr Ruddock —Tell us about the University Club. Mr JOHN BROWN —I will tell the honourable member about the University and Schools Club building if he will just be quiet for a minute. There was a proposition before the previous Government to build a Commonwealth building in Phillip Street including the old building which belonged to the University and Schools Club. One of the reasons it was not built was that it would have been extraordinarily profitable to the Government. That was a pretty good reason for the then Government not to do it. The Opposition does not believe that governments should ever do anything that is profitable or saves taxpayers' funds . Perhaps I should tell honourable members that the plan involves the Commonwealth, with a developer, turning a two-storey government garage in Phillip Street and an old building next door into a 14-storey building. The top four floors of that building would be leased by the Government for 10 years at half commercial rent, which would be about $5m. It will cost the Government $2. 5m for the block of land, which is now useless. That involves $7.5m of taxpayers ' funds. At the end of those 10 years we will own the four floors, strata title, self-contained and with security lifts. It will contain a Cabinet office and ministerial suites. The value of those four floors is estimated by the Taxation Office to be $25m at the end of those 10 years. Opposition geniuses could not have worked out that spending $7.5m over 10 years to get back $25m was a pretty good idea. Let us get to the University Club. The University Club is a building which was built in about 1923 and has sat there for all of those years without attracting one iota of interest from the Heritage Commission. But, as always, as soon as there is a proposition to do something about it the Commission jumps in. The Heritage Council of New South Wales has a very responsible attitude. I point to the preservation of The Rocks area and the balance of Sydney's centre as proof of its responsible attitude. It looked at the building and said that it was worthy of no consideration whatsoever, that it was of no significance. But the National Heritage Commission, having looked at the building, decided that it deserved to be placed at the highest level and put it on the National Estate list. That is a nonsense. The building is of no significance whatsoever. The present Government has complied with every requirement of the Australian Heritage Commission Act. We have looked for alternatives. They do not exist. My recommendation to the Government will be in line with that of the Heritage Council of New South Wales, the New South Wales Government Planning and Environment Commission and the Sydney City Council, which is that the building is of no use whatsoever and that the sooner it is removed and replaced by a decent building, which will enable us to provide a significant building to house Cabinet Ministers in proper, secure circumstances at a great saving to the Commonwealth, the better. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, who will recall that, in a letter to the South Australian Minister of Mines and Energy last week, Senator Walsh evidently gave 'development approval' for Roxby Downs and that the South Australian Minister approved it this morning. In view of that, what has happened to the independent inquiry? Mr BARRY JONES —I have not seen a copy of the letter which my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy sent to the South Australian Government. But on the face of it I see no inconsistency between the inquiry of Professor Ralph Slatyer, whose terms of reference are ancillary to the development of Roxby Downs, and the development of Roxby Downs at this early stage. If the honourable member has correctly read the nature of the Government decision I am quite confident that when he reads the letter which the Minister sent to the South Australian Government and the terms of reference which were presented to Professor Slatyer for his inquiry he will find that there is no inconsistency. They are absolutely complementary. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer the Minister to recent Press reports of the Tasmanian Government's intention to pass legislation which would effectively authorise that Government to dispose of Aboriginal human remains by cremation in a way opposed by Tasmanian Aboriginals. Can the Minister advise the House what action he intends taking in respect of this situation? Mr HOLDING —I have already spoken to the Tasmanian Government about this matter. Let me say that in Australia in 1984 no State Government of any political complexion, when it comes to disposing of mortal remains, should choose to ignore the attitude of the descendants of those people. We are not talking about the mortal remains of unnamed people; we are talking about the mortal remains of three identified Aboriginal persons whose bodies were taken illegally as a result of grave robbery. It is highly insensitive for the Tasmanian Government simply to disregard the attitude of the Aboriginal people of Tasmania. I propose to continue to try to persuade the Tasmanian Government-and in this I hope I will have the support of members of this House-that it is not an issue which can do anything other than grave damage to Australia and to any government to choose simply to say: 'We will disregard the viewpoint of a section of our community when it comes to disposing of the remains of those people's predecessors'. I understand the difference between the Government of Tasmania and the Aboriginal people. It is fairly narrow. The Aboriginal people want these remains to be disposed of in accordance with Aboriginal tradition and the ashes placed at Oyster Cove, whence the bodies were originally stolen. Negotiations broke down on the question of funding. As an endeavour in good faith to bring the parties together and to assist in the reconciliation of this matter, I am perfectly happy to use Commonwealth resources and funding. I propose to continue to press the Tasmanian Government. I will seek the assistance of the Tasmanian members of this Parliament to produce what I believe ought to be a sensitive response to the needs of an important section of the Aboriginal community. Mr CARLTON —Has the Minister for Health, his Department, or the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, for which he has ministerial responsibility, had any discussions relating to the purchase, or entered into any negotiations for the purchase, of David Bull Laboratories Pty Ltd, a supplier of generic ethical pharmaceuticals? Is this the first step in the Government's progressive nationalisation of the Australian pharmaceutical manufacturing industry? Dr BLEWETT —The CSL is a statutory authority. As I understand it, it has had discussions in relation to the purchase of the laboratory mentioned. This is in no sense a part of any overall Government policy in relation to nationalisation in this area. It is an extension of the effective commercial basis of CSL, built up as much by the previous Government as by this Government. Mr CAMPBELL —I address my question to the Minister for Administrative Services. I hope his response equals his excellent answer to the last question directed to him. Will the Minister expedite access to tents for the Aboriginal people at Cundeelee? Will he direct that 50 of these tents be set aside for the community and that people of that community be charged at the average price realised for the other tents? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for his question, which was absolutely without notice! I assure him that the Department is taking a very sympathetic view of the problem which the honourable member raised. With the winter coming on, the Aboriginal community he mentioned is faced with extreme hardship and a lack of adequate housing. He asked me to see whether the Department could set aside some surplus Army tents. Those investigations are being undertaken. I assure the honourable member that whatever can be done to alleviate the difficulties which face this Aboriginal group, for whom the honourable member has great concern, will be done. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Treasurer and ask him to recall the two questions I put to the Prime Minister this week. Was Robert J. L. Hawke a Board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia for eight years until his resignation on 17 September 1980? Is the bank referred to in the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations that same Reserve Bank? Is it a fact that section 42 of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations imposes penalties of up to $100,000 or five years ' imprisonment? As the Prime Minister has already admitted to reporting on 21 February 1982 to the New South Wales police his losing $1,000 in United States currency previously in his possession, can the Treasurer advise the Parliament whether, during the period prior to and on 21 February 1982, Robert J. L. Hawke was an agent or otherwise authorised by the Reserve Bank to deal in foreign currency within Australia? Mr KEATING —As I remember it, the Prime Minister attended to this question. Of course, I am not riveted to my seat whenever the honourable member for O'Connor asks a question; but, as far as I understand, the Prime Minister dealt adequately with that issue in his previous answers. Mr GORMAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Territories and Local Government been drawn to an article in this morning's Age newspaper headed ' Cocos Islanders want watch on Australians'? In this article Mr John Clunies-Ross is quoted as saying during an interview with the Age: There isn't any information from the Australian Government on just what would happen to the islands under each alternative they are being offered. Can the Minister say whether there is any basis to this allegation? Mr UREN —I am aware of that article and I want to state that it is completely false. In November of last year, the Australian Government, through its officials on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, made available to the Cocos people, and translated into Malay, full details of the three options-independence, free association with Australia, and integration with Australia. They went to great lengths because it is a matter of great sensitivity. Any Minister or any member of this House who has had association with them is aware of their strong desire to understand all aspects of their future. I want to nail the statement made by Mr Clunies-Ross. It is a completely false statement on his part. I also note that in the interview Mr Clunies-Ross stated that he did not believe that the islanders were ready for self-determination. I do not know of any patriarch or colonial ruler in the past who thought that people who were under-dogs were ready for self-determination. Finally, I notice that Mr Clunies- Ross said that he now believed that he would vote for integration. I want to state quite clearly that Mr Clunies-Ross and his agents have been making it quite clear that they want 'Merdeka', that is, that they want independence. Mr Clunies-Ross wants to maintain the Cocos Islands as a tax haven. He wants to continue to influence those people on the Islands by means of the huge sums that were paid to him by the Australian Government. I am quite sure that the people of Cocos will make a decision, and I hope that that decision is integration with Australia. I think that will be best for the Cocos Malay people and I think it will be strategically the best thing for the Australian nation. Mr DONALD CAMERON —This is my maiden question. Mr Hawke —Scarcely. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I refer the Prime Minister to the decision of his Government to lift the barriers to the importation of hard core pornography and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. Did the Government gather evidence that proves the availability of literature promoting and inciting the use of hard drugs has no harmful effect upon the thinking of young people? If so, can this evidence be made available for public examination? If not, why has the Prime Minister's Government been so reckless and irresponsible in its approach to censorship? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, as tempting as it is to resort to this sort of material to reply to the honourable member's question, I will not do that. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Prime Minister to resist the temptation. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, you know I would not do that. I will resist it. I congratulate the re-appearing member on his first question and wish it had been of somewhat better quality. The facts are very simple. In regard to the position of young people in this country, this Government, in its brief period of office, has done more constructively to create a better environment for the young people of this country than was done in seven years of deliberate neglect by the Opposition. The major consideration affecting the welfare of the young people of this country is whether they will have a greater opportunity of employment. In our period of office we have turned the situation around. Previously, in the Opposition's last year in office, an additional quarter of a million Australians were unemployed. In the Opposition's last year it put another quarter of a million people out of work and that sector of the Australian population which suffered most was the young people. In just over 12 months in office we have turned that around. We will be creating well over 150,000 jobs in the equivalent period. That is the sort of thing we are doing to create a better environment for the young people of this country. While people like the honourable member think that they are really addressing themselves to basic issues concerning young people by asking stupid questions like that, young people will continue to show their contempt for that side of politics and their increasing support for this side of politics. We are not concerned. This Government will continue to address itself to those issues which basically affect the welfare of the young people of this country. As we continue to do that we will continue increasingly to receive the support of the Australian people, and increasingly this pathetically ill-equipped and incompetent Opposition will go further and further down the drain, as it does each day, in the politics of this country. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members I present a schedule showing Government responses to the House of Representatives and joint committee reports for the period 21 April 1983 to 30 March 1984. Copies have been made available to honourable members. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 7A (8) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, I present reports by the Attorney-General on information communicated to Mr Justice Cross on 4 January and 23 January 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —by leave-Yesterday the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) asked me a question about the Overseas Trading Corporation. In the answer I said that no representations had been made to me by the Australian Chamber of Commerce. I am wrong about that. The Australian Chamber of Commerce wrote to me about this matter on 16 December last year. It also made representations to officers of my Department and had consultations with the Australian Bank Ltd. To that extent, my answer yesterday was in error. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the annual report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13 August 1983. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I present the following paper, Taxation Statistics 1981-82, dated 5 April 1984, the supplement to the Sixty-first Report of the Commissioner of Taxation which was presented to Parliament on 28 October 1982. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 11 of the Life Insurance Act 1945, I present the Life Insurance Commissioner's annual report for 1983, together with the half yearly financial and statistical bulletin. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972, I present the Australian Wool Corporation annual report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 29 (4) of the Dairy Produce Act 1924, I present the Australian Dairy Corporation annual report for 1982-83, together with the text of a statement relating to the report . Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members, I present an information paper on the outlook for the aviation industry . Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975, I present the Australia Council annual report for 1982-83. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-On 1 December 1983 the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) presented on behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the Committee's report entitled ' Australian-United States' Relations: The Extraterritorial Application of United States Laws'. It was a report the Government welcomed, and one which it has acted on decisively and swiftly. The Committee examined thoroughly the problems experienced in Australia over the past few years and concluded that there was a need for Australian residents and those doing business in Australia to be protected from the extraterritorial application of United States laws. The Committee recommended that legislation be introduced to deal with the problem. A week after the Committee's report had been tabled, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) introduced in the other place the Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill 1983 and, in welcoming the report on behalf of the Government, noted that the Bill was consistent with the major recommendations of the report. The Bill completed its passage through this House on 7 March and will shortly come into force. The Government agrees with the Committee's conclusion that the agreement between Australia and the United States relating to co-operation on anti-trust matters is a significant step towards resolving numerous difficulties that have arisen between the Australian and United States governments in the enforcement of the United States anti-trust laws. In his second reading speech, the Attorney -General reaffirmed Australia's commitment to the consultative approach of the agreement, and stated that it was the Government's firm belief that jurisdictional conflicts between the laws and polities of sovereign governments should be resolved if at all possible by consultation and not by unilateral legal or executive action. However, the Committee noted that the agreement did not deal with a number of important issues, including laws such as the United States Export Administration Act, and indicated its concern that the agreement could not provide a complete answer to the problem of private treble damages proceedings. It was against that background that the Committee decided to recommend the introduction of the legislation referred to. I will not take the time of the House by going through the provisions of the legislation again. I am pleased to note that when it was passed, it did so with the support of honourable members on both sides of the House. Let me only stress that the enactment of this legislation as a defensive measure is not inconsistent with the Government's policy of consultation, co-operation and negotiation on anti-trust problems. This method of settling jurisdictional conflicts has always been foremost in the Government's approach. The Government is satisfied, however, that the legislation will ensure the stable climate necessary for the development of fruitful trading relations which exist, and which I hope will continue to exist, with one of our major trading partners, on the basis of equality and mutual respect. The Committee also recommended that the Government give high priority to ensuring active Australian participation in international attempts, such as those within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, to reach broadly acceptable arrangements to avoid or resolve conflicts in the application of national trading laws. We shall certainly be doing this. Finally, I would like to thank the Committee for its thorough examination of the problem, and for its lucid, comprehensive and constructive report. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-The embarrassment which accompanied the Westinghouse case is of joint interest to Australian-American relations. It is to be recalled that the executive heads of four major Australian companies were under threat of arrest at ports of entry into the United States. The matter was of such high concern to both governments that it was placed on the agenda for discussion between the Prime Minister and the President. The threat of imprisonment lasted from 1979 until 1981, when it was resolved by the payment of $11m to Westinghouse. As the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence points out, when the price of uranium escalated in the 1970s it became apparent that Westinghouse was winning contracts for its reactors by an offer of fuel at knock -down prices. When the world market price rose, Westinghouse faced losses, and its lawyers decided to use the extra-territorial provisions of United States Law to take anti-trust action against a number of companies. Westinghouse declined to meet its promises to its clients the companies, and blamed the Western suppliers group, a group set up for safeguard purposes. Westinghouse claimed damages amounting to $6 billion. It is the immensity of the Westinghouse issue and the duration of the litigation which lead me to feel that it was for the good of commercial relations between the United States and Australia for action to have been taken in this Parliament to remove the prospect of such an incident ever occurring again. The then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, impressed upon us the gravity of the problem when he said: Australia's national interest was jeopardised by the Westinghouse proceedings in that: In essence these proceedings, although privately instituted, represented a challenge to the Australian Government's sovereign authority to control and regulate the export of uranium from this country. The enforcement against Australian companies of a judgment would have a seriously detrimental effect on Australia's trade and development, having regard to the large amount claimed. The threat of enforcement is already having a detrimental effect. The report of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee made these important observations: The Westinghouse case brought forcefully to Australia's attention the impact to both Government and business of the extraterritorial application of US trading laws, especially in treble damages suits under the antitrust laws. Despite firm Australian representations to the US Administration opposing US attempts to regulate the legitimate activities of Australian companies, the US Administration and courts showed no serious concern for Australia's expressed intrests. It was not until after the Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restrictions of Enforcement) Act was enacted in 1979 that the Westinghouse case was settled out-of-court, even then involving over $11,000,000 payable by the Australian defendants (together with their extremely high legal costs). Future cases could involve even higher and equally unwarranted costs to Australian business. Australian governmental concern should not be limited to the direct financial impact on Australian business (though that is of primary concern). The Westinghouse case showed that Australia's export trade, and the Government's own preference for orderly marketing arrangements for primary products, could be hindered by the unjustified extension abroad of US policies and laws. The continuing absence, despite the helpful but limited antitrust Agreement reached by the two governments in 1982, of any formal US governmental or judicial procedures for giving proper consideration to legitimate Australian interests before invoking or enforcing US laws, is a major reason why further Australian legislative responses need be considered. Following the Westinghouse case, there have been other developments which demonstrate the need for Australian law to negate the force of United States law applying to Australia in like situations to the Westinghouse case. It remains for me to point out that, even when action is not upheld by US courts, huge legal costs can be built up merely to secure that kind of decision. Legislation on this matter was, therefore, both necessary and unavoidable. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —by leave-The report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, 'The Way We P(l)ay: Commonwealth Assistance for Sport and Recreation', was tabled in Parliament on 8 December 1983. I am pleased to be able to thank the Committee for the long hours its members worked to prepare a comprensive and detailed report and for the thoughtful and helpful comments made in the report. I am particularly pleased to note the Committee's support for the Government's policy goals in sport and recreation. If some members of the Committee are present, I would like them to know that I mean exactly what I said. It is an absolutely splendid report and I am sorry that we cannot reply to it immediately. Such a detailed report warrants a considered response from the Government. This has proved to be time consuming and will necessitate a delay in preparing a full response by the Government. The report covers a diffuse and complex area. It contains 60 recommendations, some of which are addressed directly to Ministers other than me, and others which affect the operations of a number of departments. Consultation with these Ministers and their departments has been required in preparing the Government's response. The length and complexity of the task has meant that my initial objective of responding to this report in early March has now been overtaken. However, I will present the Government's response to the report at the earliest date at which I am able to integrate the responses of all those Ministers affected by its recommendations. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —by leave-I acknowledge the statement of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) but I am disappointed that he has not lived up to the commitment that he gave to respond to this report by March. I do acknowledge that the report is a complex and detailed one and the importance of the Government's response could well determine the future direction that Commonwealth involvement in sport and recreation will take for a number of years. To me it is simply not good enough to give the reasons such as the Minister has given as an excuse for not responding to this report. The facts are simply these: Of the 60 recommendations only three relate to the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, only four to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, many of these have already been acted upon and one relates to the Department of Territories and Local Government. The fact is that 52 of the recommendations made in the report are the direct responsibility of the Minister. I am disappointed that they have not been made for one very simple reason: At the moment I understand that a report is before the Government from the interim committee looking at the establishment of an Australian Sports Commission. I believe it is essential that the Government responds to the recommendations in this report before it make decisions that determine the make-up and structure of the Australian Sports Commission. I simply ask the Minister for this to occur. The type of response that we have seen today is, I believe, comparable to the excuses that were given to this House following the Government's decision not to support the wishes of the Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Association of New South Wales when the Government failed to give that Association a commitment to underwrite the 1988 Disabled Olympic Games in Canberra. I request the Minister to ensure that a government response to this report is given before long term decisions are taken in relation to the final structure and make-up of the Australian Sports Commission. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.03) —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 1 May 1984, unless Mr Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. It is necessary for me to move this motion in view of the slightly longer than normal adjournment of the House. Perhaps I should point out to people who may be listening and who think it is a rather long break that the House has now changed its sitting pattern. We are now pushing the number of sitting hours that we sat in three weeks in past years into two weeks. It has been quite a hectic session since we started in February. Members have had to sit eight of the 10 days in a fortnight. They have then had a fortnight's break. Most Government members think that the new system is working very well. Mr MacKellar —It is awful. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Warringah tells me the hours are terrible but his wife thinks they are terrific. The other night I was sitting beside her at dinner and she said: 'Just keep it going, Mick. This is the best thing that has ever happened'. I cannot understand it. Mr MacKellar —I will check that out, Mick. Mr YOUNG —I would check it out because one of the reasons she reckoned the new sitting hours were terrific is that she is seeing more of the honourable member. I too was at a bit of a loss to understand that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Federal Government's dereliction of duty to the nation's dairy industry and in particular the mounting cost to dairy farmers of the Government's failure to resolve the PT Indomilk scandal. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(3.05) —It is with sorrow and considerable anger that I report that Australia's dairy industry is being sold down the drain. Honourable members will recall that last year, in this very House, I warned the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) about the worsening financial situation facing our dairy farmers. This was because of their compulsory involvement in the Australian Dairy Corporation's ill-fated marketing venture in Indonesia, PT Indomilk. My warning went unheeded and my worst fears are now being realised. Today Australia's dairy industry is owed more than $13m which will probably never be repaid. Our dairy farmers are the innocent victims of a bizarre web of dishonesty, incompetence, bureaucratic bungling and commercial naivety. They are very angry at the incompetence of the Australian Dairy Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd, and who would blame them? It is a scandal, which the present Government has sat on for more than a year. The Minister has known the facts from the day he was sworn in but still he does nothing. I would like to take just a few minutes to document the background to this sorry story. PT Indomilk is a joint venture re-processing and marketing enterprise operated from Jakarta by the Australian Dairy Corporation's subsidiary, Asia Dairy Industries, and an Indonesian company, known locally as Marison. Because of the dishonesty and incompetence I have just referred to, PT Indomilk is suffering substantial losses. The point has been reached where Australian dairy farmers who supply PT Indomilk are more than feeling the pinch because payments from butter and skim milk powder export pools have been halted since last June, leaving dairy farmers with $4m in undisbursed funds and a total of $13m in overall debts to the beginning of this year. This very complex situation has arisen primarily because of the following factors: First, an inexplicable decision by the Australian Dairy Corporation to relinquish management control of PT Indomilk to Marison in December 1980; second , a further agreement concluded in September 1981 under which the Australian Dairy Corporation was to sell its 50 per cent shareholding in PT Indomilk to a third party, PT Kebun Bunga, for $US10m; third, the intervention of certain Indonesian Government Ministers which aimed at preventing the sale of PT Indomilk to PT Kebun Bunga; fourth, a further agreement concluded by the Australian Dairy Corporation in June 1982 to sell the same 50 per cent shareholding to Marison for $US4.5m, that is, about $US5.5 less than the first agreement for the same shareholding; fifth, a dramatic fall in PT Indomilk's share of the Indonesian retail market for processed milk products immediately before and during this period; sixth, the associated change in PT Indomilk's financial position under Indonesian management in the past three years, a sudden transition from a profitable enterprise to a company owing $13m to Australian dairy farmers, and seventh, a decision which has only just come to light-it was announced by President Suharto on 25 March-to issue permits for three new Indonesian factories to process local milk production. Something went terribly wrong with PT Indomilk during and after all those share dealings. Whatever the reason-one is drawn inescapably to the conclusion that dishonesty is involved-one thing is certain: Despite the Minister's optimism in this Parliament on 5 October last year, when he said there was a real possibility that PT Indomilk would trade out of its difficulties, there is absolutely no possibility of the Australian Dairy Corporation being able to trade out of its present situation without having the management control of PT Indomilk which it so mysteriously relinquished in 1980. I have said that the dairy industry is angry, and this is true. The industry's dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in the Australian Dairy Corporation is vividly illustrated by the decisions made by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference on 8 February and 15 March this year. The ADIC has said, inter alia, that the present board of directors of Asia Dairy Industries is totally unacceptable to dairy farmers and must be dismissed; the dairy industry in future cannot be held responsible for the company Asia Dairy Industries unless it is given full access to details of ADI's operations; Asia Dairy Industries must be brought under the control of the ADIC; the trading, investment and technical roles of the Australian Dairy Corporation and Asia Dairy Industries must be separately organised; the export pools should not be used to recoup the moneys lost by PT Indomilk. These decisions, coming as they do from the dairy industry's most important and influential producers' council, are a serious reflection on the Minister for Primary Industry, who is responsible for the operations of the Australian Dairy Corporation and its Asian subsidiary. The Minister has clearly failed to heed my warning last year that he must take positive action on PT Indomilk and the role of Asia Dairy Industries. He has clearly failed to reach a consensus with the dairy industry on the question of whether or not the trading losses of PT Indomilk should be met from the export pools, despite his assertion in this Parliament last October that, in general terms, any loss by the dairy industry would involve the whole dairy industry. Furthermore, this Minister for lame excuses will probably turn around and say that it is the previous Government's fault that he has done nothing on PT Indomilk for more than 12 months and has made no attempt to overcome the problems associated with the irrregular commercial arrangements concluded by the Australian Dairy Corporation and ADI. This is the root of the problem. The Minister has known since March 1983 that trouble was brewing. He knows, as we all do now, although it was not widely known at the time, that the matter goes back to 1976, when Marison sought to increase its shareholding in PT Indomilk from 40 per cent to 50 per cent, and a cheque for $75,000 was received by the Australian Dairy Corporation for the transfer of the extra 10 per cent of shares. Neither Asia Dairy Industries nor the Australian Dairy Corporation had discussed or approved this move. It was subsequently disclosed to the Australian Dairy Corporation management that the then Chairman of the Corporation and Asia Dairy Industries, Mr Tony Webster, had agreed to the transfer of shares at an extraordinary meeting of shareholders in Indonesia in September 1976. We do not know who attended that meeting. The then Minister for Primary Industry should have been told and his approval should have been sought. He was not told, nor was he asked. Following this 10 per cent share transfer, the history of PT Indomilk was characterised by a serious decline in the relationships between the partners and by a running down of the business. The net result of this was that the Australian Dairy Corporation, instead of having a majority on the board of directors and a minority on the board of commissioners, had its position reversed, losing control of the board of directors and gaining control of the board of commissioners. The prestigious position of president-director was transferred to Marison and its powers increased to provide full rights to bind the company in management affairs. The end result was that the Indonesian partner became the effective controller of the company, whereas the intention of the joint venture was that the ADC should, at all times, maintain control of PT Indomilk. Australian dairy farmers were literally thrown to the winds. They were not referred to, and it was done without notification to the Minister for Primary Industry or to this Parliament. The actions of the people in the Australian Dairy Corporation and Asia Dairy Industries are incomprehensible in commercial terms and irresponsible and inexcusable in regard to their responsibility to the Australian dairy industry and this Parliament. We come next to the decision taken by the Australian Dairy Corporation during 1981 to dispose of all its interests in PT Indomilk because of the declining profitability of the company, the management takeover by the Indonesians, and a serious breakdown in partnership relations. On 20 September 1981, a heads of agreement deal was concluded between the Australian Dairy Corporation and the third party I mentioned at the start, PT Kebun Bunga, for the purchase of the Corporation's remaining shareholding of PT Indomilk. The price was $US10m. To quote another Minister in another place, apparently it seemed like a good idea at the time. I have to say that the Minister for Primary Industry received some very heavy representations from certain Ministers of the Indonesian Government. As a result, the then Minister made it quite clear to the Australian Dairy Corporation that, while he did not oppose the sale, it would need the approval of the Indonesian Government before it could go ahead. Mr Nixon clarified his position further in a letter to the Australian Dairy Corporation on 2 June 1982 which authorised the Australian Dairy Corporation to proceed in accordance with the process laid down in Indonesian law. The new chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation, Mr Malcolm Vawser, elected instead , however, to withhold this letter from the Corporation. Mr Vawser visited Jakarta with two representatives of the Australian Dairy Corporation and Asia Dairy Industries, Mr Saulwick and Mr Bruce, and had an informal meeting with representatives from PT Kebun Bunga in June 1982. At this meeting, Mr Vawser quite erroneously-that is the kindest word I can use-maintained that the Australian Dairy Corporation could not move under the heads of agreement document because of what he claimed was the attitude of the Minister for Primary Industry. That is just incredible, and what happened two days later is perhaps the most bizarre episode in the entire PT Indomilk saga. On 9 June 1982 Mr Vawser entered into a further heads of agreement to sell the very same shares to the Corporation's partner, Marison, for $US4.5m. Mr Nixon subsequently learned late in July-it was no thanks to Mr Vawser-that his letter of 2 June had not been circulated to Australian Dairy Corporation members. He directed Mr Vawser to do this forthwith, but Nixon, when he issued this instruction, still had not been told that a second heads of agreement had been concluded. When PT Kebun Bunga learned about the second heads of agreement it commenced legal action in both Indonesia and Australia, and I can understand why. In Indonesia, the district court of East Jakarta and the Indonesian High Court have both declared the 1981 heads of agreement to be valid and legally binding under Indonesian law, and the Australian Dairy Corporation has been ordered there to comply with the terms of the agreement. Legal costs incurred by the Australian Dairy Corporation now add up to $300,000 and industry leaders are concerned that the court actions initiated by the Corporation with Marison as an intervening plaintiff to a large extent have been encouraged by the Indonesian partner's apparent belief that PT Kebun Bunga can be knocked out of the ring by executive action. A further matter of concern regarding the 1981 heads of agreement is that PTKB did not learn of the changes to the articles of association involving management control until March 1983. In effect, despite all the admonitions of the Rae Committee report on the need for statutory authorities to act with propriety in their overseas transactions, we have the situation where the Australian Dairy Corporation knowingly proceeded to conclude an agreement to sell its shareholding in a company in which it purported to have full control. I turn now to the financial position of PT Indomilk. Despite this company's early entry into the Indonesian market, its share of retail sales for processed milk products has fallen from 81 per cent in 1973 to 18.3 per cent in 1981. In the past three years it has changed from a profitable enterprise into a company with a probable $13m debt to the Australian dairy industry. PT Indomilk sustained a net operating loss of $2.5m in 1981 and $2m in 1982, and when devaluation losses are taken into account the operating loss for 1983 is expected to be around $3.5m. At the end of November 1983, PT Indomilk owed Asia Dairy Industries, and that means Australia's dairy farmers, no less than $13m. This comprised about $10.5m in respect of raw material purchases and about $2.5m for royalties, technical fees and other items. Not all supplies come from Australia but other countries' goods have been paid for in full, and Australians are left to carry the bucket. Faced with liquidity problems in Februry 1982, the Indonesian non-bank financial institutions issued promissory notes with security over all the tangible assets of PT Indomilk, with an acknowledgment by Asia Dairy Industries that all amounts owing for purchase of materials were unsecured. The Minister, in correspondence with me on 11 July 1983, and I am prepared to table it, advised that Asia Dairy Industries did not-I repeat, not-make arrangements to borrow any moneys on behalf of PT Indomilk during 1982. The ratio of money due to Asia Dairy Industries as compared to non-bank financial institutions was very high and grew higher. Why did the Minister mislead me? Was this borrowing an offence against section 23 of the Dairy Produce Act? Will the Minister explain how the Chairman of ADC would provide a lien in these circumstances over the tangible assets of PT Indomilk? The disaster has become further compounded. The draft balance sheet shows that $5m is owed to PT Indomilk by the Marison distributor company and $600,000 by PT Dairyville, another Marison company. Mr Nahar Zahiruddin, the president of PT Indomilk, is also on the board of Ficorinvest, which is one of the principal finance lenders to PT Indomilk. One does not need any imagination to visualise the web of intrigue. A business arrangement was suggested by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference to inject funds into PT Indomilk or equal shares with Marison receiving a reduction in its 15 per cent distribution rate-about three times the normal allowance. Marison refused. It obviously thought the goose that lays the golden eggs should continue to be fed by Australian dairy farmers. I am going to ensure that that does not happen. Marison has continued its activities. Marison, notwithstanding its enormous debt to PT Indomilk, has sold 20,000 cartons of sweetened condensed milk at 36 per cent of the usual wholesale price on the pretence that it is below standard. But it is being sold. The loss to Australian diary farmers is $350,000. We realise why the main Federal dairy industry bodies are angry and worried about their current predicament in relation to PT Indomilk . The ADIC recently contacted the Minister, telling him all about it. He replied to the telex. (Extension of time granted.) The Minister for Primary Industry has been in office for more than a year but he has clearly failed in his responsibility to ensure that the interests of Australian dairy farmers are adequately protected. It is just not good enough for him to reply to the telex sent last week by saying that he wants more time to consider the matter. Under this Labor Government, Australian dairy farmers have been left to fend for themselves. I put it to this House that there is a requirement for this Minister to advise the dairy industry just how the pooling situation is to be handled. This involves his making a decision on how the PT Indomilk debt will be met and how the release of further pool moneys is to be made. At the Indonesian end, the situation calls for an independent assessment of all the options, including the possible winding up of PT Indomilk. If people are asked to resign, if leaders of the ADC are to be sacked, so be it. Finally, there is a requirement for the Minister to explain to this House why the last two reports of the Australian Dairy Corporation have failed to report properly on the situation in relation to PT Indomilk and the irregular and secretive restructuring of the company in 1980. If heads have to roll, so be it. If the Minister has any sense, any concern for Australian dairy farmers, he will act now, to make sure that one of these heads is not his own. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.21) —Today I tabled the report of the Australian Dairy Corporation for 1982-83. That report sets out quite clearly that the Australian Dairy Corporation has a subsidiary called Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd, and one of the companies with which it is related is PT Australia Indonesian Milk Industries Inc., or PT Indomilk, an Indonesian company. Asia Dairy Industries, acting on behalf of the dairy industry-that is, the producers and processors-has largely been a successful operation. There is potential in other countries in the Asian areas. The rationale behind the dairy industry's setting up the Asia Dairy Industries subsidiary is that it allows surplus products to be put into Asian markets for recombination and for manufacturing purposes, it provides an outlet for the technology and the product of industry, and it develops in the people of the region a taste for dairy products. The situation that the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) related to the House pretty accurately is something that this Government has been grappling with and the previous Government grappled with for quite a while. I stress that the Asia Dairy Industries subsidiary of the Australian Dairy Corporation is largely a successful operation. The problems it has with PT Indomilk largely concentrate on the fact that bad business decisions have been taken. As the honourable gentleman has said, some disastrous decisions have been taken by the Australian Dairy Corporation. Asia Dairy Industries handles something like $40m worth of product. I do not think the honourable gentleman suggests that we should collapse Asia Dairy Industries, but I think he suggests that we should collapse PT Indomilk. If he is saying that the Government should decide to collapse Asia Dairy Industries he is saying that we should do something which probably would imperil the subsidiary and the Government probably would have to pay out something like $13m or $14m. That would guarantee that no funds would be saved from the subsidiary, that there would never be a chance of this business coming out of the red. All the advice I have got, until quite recently, from Mr Vawser of the Australian Dairy Corporation is that by and large-some of this is on the basis of a report by Coopers and Lybrand-there is a chance that this subsidiary will trade its way out of trouble. I wish to make one very fundamental point clear. The Australian Dairy Corporation acts in a commercial way. That is its charter. It facilitates exports and through its financial arrangements and the levy disbursement scheme it underpins the manufacturing sector of the Australian dairy industry. I am rather amazed that all of the blame can be heaped on the Government when it is the view of this Government and was the view of the past Government that in all things the Australian Dairy Corporation should take commercial decisions. The Australian Dairy Corporation's Board consists of three producers, three manufacturers, two people with special qualifications, a government nominee, a union nominee and the Chairman. They take commercial decisions. When they made the October 1981 decision my predecessor as Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, advised that they should continue to take commercial decisions. At the time I made the claim that on the evidence available to me he had interfered in one of their commercial decisions. On examining the evidence since becoming Minister-I have not gone back into his correspondence-I find that there is some ambiguity about it. People have told me other things about what occurred in relation to that crucial October 1981 board decision. As the honourable gentleman rightly said, the ADC took a decision to let its controlling interest slip out of its hands. That was negotiated or arranged by the then Chairman, Mr Webster, but on my information-this is only the information of one of the Board members-it was later ratified by the ADC or ADI. I point out that the ADI has a different board structure-it is certainly a more commercial structure-from that of the ADC. In other words, it has a smaller board which has more members with commercial expertise. I am informed that the Board of the ADC agreed to let the controlling interest slip from its hands. As the honourable member for Darling Downs pointed out quite rightly, two crucial decisions were taken. One was to sell it to PT Kebun Bunga and the other -I will not add all the qualifications-was later to sell it to Marisons. But there were reasons for its being sold to the two companies. That is what has got the whole situation into such a complex state. The legal ramifications of the fact that two heads of agreement have been signed are such that this Government is effectively stymied from assisting the Australian Dairy Corporation to resolve the problems that it has created. There has been a drop in the share of the market, there has been poor management in the past-long before this Government took office-and some of the other things to which the honourable gentleman has referred have taken place. I fail to understand why the honourable gentleman cannot really say what he believes we should do about it. Is he really saying that the Government should take a decision to collapse Asia Dairy Industries and thereby guarantee that the subsidiary will collapse and that there will be no chance of any money being saved from the subsidiary? He has referred to a resolution by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference, the ADIC, which includes both producers and processors. It took a decision a few Fridays back to write to the ADC advising it that it no longer approved of the ADI Board and making a new suggestion with respect to the membership of that Board. The ADC has to advise me. It has not advised me of its reaction to the suggestion. It does not have to act on the suggestion, as far as I understand. The view of one organisation on what should be done has simply been put to a statutory board. The ADC, as I understand it, is examining this. But changing the people on the ADI Board will not change the very basic problem. If people want to do anything about this problem they have to focus on what they are really saying and on the implications of that. I take the advice of the ADC and I insist, as did Mr Peter Nixon, that the ADC proceed to take commercial decisions on its own bat, as long as it does not break the law or audit requirements. As I have said, this problem is locked in the courts. Until the courts resolve the situation we cannot effectively sell the PTI. We have two offers, in a way, but we have two heads of agreement. The matter is locked inextricably in the courts. I think the honourable member for Darling Downs has a fair amount of gall in trying to blame me for the whole of this problem when it was all of the previous Government's making. Certainly all of these things occurred during the time of that Government's administration of the Australian Dairy Corporation and its Asia Dairy Industries subsidiary. We have not done some of the things the previous Government did. I will not go into the history of the administration of this Corporation by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). We have been trying to grapple with the mess that we very clearly inherited. If the Government takes the decision that it will collapse the PT Indomilk subsidiary, it then has to stand behind that decision. But how can we take that decision unless the industry tells us that that is what it wants us to do? I have constantly been putting this question back to the industry. Only recently, when I clearly advised it that at the end of the day it would have to pay for its own decisions, has it even really focused on the problem. Most of the material that the honourable gentleman quoted from was by way of a report by Mr Peter Lavery and Mr Jim Saunders. They compiled a report on the whole mess at the urging of the ADIC. Only since that report has become available has the industry focused on the problem. It is now starting to take some decisions. Quite frankly, the producers have been well aware of it. The producer representatives on the board and ADI have been swapping hats for a long time and they are key people in the dairy industry. They have known what has been there all along. They have known of the problem and they, too, have been grappling with it and have been unable to find a solution. As I said, this scandal occurred during the time of the previous Government, even if it was not entirely of its making. The honourable member for Darling Downs is criticising equally his former colleagues as well as this Government. As we all know, the right honourable member for New England at one stage even disowned the then honourable member for Gippsland. I ask Opposition members: What did they do when in government to resolve or reduce the proportions of this scandal once it had been set rolling? As I have said, the problem of PTI is twofold. Firstly, PTI has been unprofitable in recent years; secondly, a number of options available to the Australian Dairy Corporation to remedy this situation were closed by the ADC's decision to sell its shares to an Indonesian company unacceptable to the other partner in PTI. Both problems emerged under the previous Government. One of the consequences of PTI's continuing unprofitability is that amounts have become overdue to ADI and ADC for Australian dairy produce supplied to PTI. Unless PTI pays for this product eventually the dairy product bills will bear the loss. As the industry knows, I have been willing to listen to the views of all groups on how any losses should be shared within the industry. Surely the Opposition is not suggesting that this Government should intervene to turn about the prospects of an Indonesian business. The ADC needs to work towards restoring PTI's profitability and underwriting any increase in the pool exposure. I have been advised by the ADC that it is pursuing both these objectives. In particular I understand that shipments of Australian products to PTI are now being made on a cash on delivery basis. What did the previous Government do about the sale of the ADC shares? Industry representatives have told me that the previous Minister 's attitude to the ADC was confused. I have already referred to that. He sent two ambiguous letters to the ADC. In the end he just tried to duck out from under by claiming that the ADC should act according to its commercial judgment. That is my advice to the ADC. I have been asking it for its advice on this question constantly. I will turn to what this Government has done about it. Almost immediately on coming to office I initiated a full review, involving the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Trade, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Finance, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Attorney- General's Department, to determine whether there was any action the Government could take that would resolve the matter. The review confirmed that there is little that the Government can do. We inherited this scandal made by the previous governments. It was a scandal from the beginning. Now the honourable member for Darling Downs has the nerve to ask what this Government is doing to extricate the industry from the situation. At the start of my statement I set out the problem. The whole matter is locked in the law. The dairy industry, through its own activities, got itself into this problem. I have tried to find ways and means by which the Government can do anything to assist the dairy industry in its problem. Every time I go through that exercise I am told the problem is one of law. If the honourable gentleman opposite is saying quite clearly that we should collapse the PTI subsidiary, I would first wish for the dairy industry to tell me that rather than he. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr SCOTT —The report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan has been presented today and, as the leader of the delegation, I would like to place on record my thanks to all members of the delegation for their support, dedication and enthusiasm during the visit to Japan. The delegation, made up of Australian Labor Party members of the Government, members of the Liberal Party of Australia, members of the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats, worked extremely well. I thank them for their support. I also wish to thank the various government departments which assisted in the preparation-the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Parliamentary Library, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Special Minister of State. I also thank members of the Australian Embassy in Japan, particularly Mr Stephen Kentwell and Mr Kym Jones, the charge-d'affaires. Special thanks must go to our former Senior Parliamentary Officer, Mr Jim Pender . I say 'former' because Jim has recently taken up a senior position with the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. Our loss is its gain. Jim Pender was the perfect secretary to the delegation and a total credit to the Australian Public Service. His qualities in the diplomatic field came to the fore during the visit to Japan. The importance of the continuation of reciprocal visits between the parliaments of Australia and Japan needs to be stressed again and again. I know that all members of the delegation support the need to build on better understandings, better relations, more trade and more visits by Australians to Japan and visits by Japanese to Australia. The status and prestige of these parliamentary exchange visits was certainly enhanced when the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, entertained a Japanese delegation in Australia in February 1984. If that action by our Prime Minister set a new standard, and I believe that it did, Japanese hosts built on that new standard and established a strong and lasting foundation for ongoing relations between Australia and Japan. I am sure that all members of the delegation will join me in recording our sincere thanks to our hosts who ensured that our visit was as informative as possible. They met our every wish and worked tirelessly to ensure a fruitful visit. We were very fortunate indeed in meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone, or Yasu as he is known to Bob. He gave us half an hour of his very valuable time, which is all the more important when it is known that his Government was in the midst of the Tanaka affair. The President of the House of Councillors, Mr Kimura , and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Fukuda, did likewise. We had the fortunate experience of a very formal, large reception held at the residence of the President of the House of Councillors. There was a very large turnout. I think this was partly due to the importance placed on the visit and also because a great deal of lobbying was going on by the various factions. While we were in the Parliament meeting with the House of Councillors committee we raised a number of issues, one of which was the question of sex discrimination. It was somewhat fortuitous that, in the English version of the Japan Times that evening, there was an editorial dealing with the very question of sex discrimination in Japan. In our discussions with our Japanese hosts we adopted a two-pronged approach- trade and tourism. On the first issue we were somewhat fortunate in that our visit was a few days before the visit of President Reagan. It was clear that the United States of America was all geared up to make inroads into the Japanese markets and that these inroads would be to the disadvantage of Australia. At every opportunity members of the delegation stressed to their Japanese hosts their concern that Australia's trade with Japan should not be disadvantaged by any talks with the United States of America. The tours that the delegation was taken on ranged from meetings with the Nuclear Safety Bureau to visits to Hiroshima, the Tokyo police headquarters, one of the large factories of the Nippon Electric Company and the Australian Embassy . I want to touch briefly on the visit to the Australian Embassy. It is a credit to Australia that we have chosen such a magnificent position for the Embassy in Japan. I am sure that those honourable members who have been there will agree with me. It consists of a very ancient garden that means a great deal to the Japanese people. People at the Embassy told us that during cherry blossom time and various festivals they receive far more visitors than any other embassy. Gardens mean a great deal to the Japanese people. In this garden in particular there was a pine tree that was over 400 years old. I was proud to find that Australia was looking after that place in trust for the Japanese people. We also paid a visit to the Ministry of Transport where we discussed tourism. I want to touch on a couple of aspects concerning what happened when the delegation split up. A number of us went to discuss the nuclear industry. During the briefing at the Australian Embassy prior to that and in discussions with the Nuclear Safety Bureau we were advised of Japan's problems with nuclear waste disposal and of its plans to dump nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean. There is a Government publicity campaign aimed at winning public support for the dumping of nuclear waste in the Pacific. Officials at the Nuclear Safety Bureau provided members of the delegation with publications and facts on the very serious problem of nuclear waste disposal, including a detailed account of the method proposed to be used in dumping nuclear waste in the Pacific. We were able to bring these publications back with us. In a Press release dated December 1982 the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission recorded that, as at 31 March 1982, there were approximately 410,000 units of low level radioactive waste, each unit equivalent to 200-litre drums, stored in Japanese nuclear power station sites. It was forecast that, at the current rate of waste accumulation, 1.1 million units would be stored for disposal in 1990. Two days after our visit to the Nuclear Safety Bureau the editorial of the Asahi Evening News, the English version, covered the question of nuclear waste disposal. The editorial stated: Even more serious is the problem of disposing of the nuclear power reactor after it completes its effective life. This will become a realistic problem in Japan in about 10 years from now. If nothing is done to resolve this, 'nuclear reactor graves' which require supervisors will spring up here and there. The editorial continued: If they are to be dismantled and removed, there are the problems of what to do about the radioactive waste which comes to about 10,000 tons per reactor and who will foot the cost which will come to 20 per cent of the construction cost. The official report of the delegation has included this revealing editorial. The discussions with the Japanese Nuclear Safety Bureau canvassed all these matters, including the very serious problem of radioactive obsolete nuclear power stations which may well have to be entombed in concrete to stand as radioactive monuments for many generations. These generations will look to them and wonder what madness prevailed before we created these radioactive graveyards. During the visit we were able to go to Hiroshima. That is the home town of my wife, so I have been there on a number of occasions. In a way, it was a return home. The delegation visited the Hiroshima peace memorial museum and park and was able to view a very recent film entitled Hiroshima and Nagasaki-The harvest of nuclear war. This film graphically illustrated the horror and madness of atomic war. The impact of this film on the members of the delegation was quite profound. Later that day we paid a visit to the Mayor of Hiroshima, who had been advised of our deep interest in the film. The Mayor made a presentation of a copy of the film, which was later presented to Mr Speaker and the President of the Senate. This film is now available through the Parliamentary Library. I understand that video copies are being made so that there will be a wider distribution. In the short period which I have to speak to this report I do not have time to thank all those people who assisted us, both in Australia and in Japan, but once again I want to place on record our sincere thanks to Jim Pender, who was tireless in his efforts to make sure that the delegation worked well and that the timetables in particular set by our Japanese hosts were met. As leader of the delegation, I thank my friends and colleagues on the other side of the House for their support. It was very important. I think on this occasion we certainly showed a united front to the Japanese people in the very important areas of tourism and trade. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —by leave-I rise to support the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) and to endorse the comments that he made about the very successful delegation to Japan between 23 October and 29 October last year. As a new member of this House I consider myself exceedingly fortunate to have been a part of that delegation. I freely acknowledge that it was due only to the temporary misfortune suffered by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), who was to have been part of that delegation, that I was able to go. I must say, in referring to the delegation's report and in supporting the honourable member for Hindmarsh, that the trip to Japan and the participation with other members of the delegation gave us all a valuable opportunity not only to meet our counterparts in the Japanese Parliament but also to meet the Japanese people who are major trading partners of Australia and the voters of Japan-the people of Japan who, after all, are the ones who ultimately determine which of our products will be bought and which will be rejected. I endorse what the honourable member for Hindmarsh has said and pay a tribute to the Japanese Government and the Presiding Officers of the Diet, firstly, for their invitation to go to Japan and, secondly, for their hospitality. Nothing was too much trouble for the people of Japan. I think that is evidenced, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh has intimated, by the willingness of the Japanese people not only to host our visit but also to see that time was made available for their Prime Minister, Mr Nakasone, to spend time with this delegation in spite of his program. I was very grateful for that. I also endorse the sentiments of the honourable member for Hindmarsh in paying a tribute to the work done by the Australian Embassy. I agree also that the role of the charge d'affaires, Mr Kym Jones, and the role of the language officer, Mr Stephen Kentwell, deserves particular mention. The role of the Japanese Diet, the Japanese Parliament, and the efforts of the officers of the Japanese Embassy who went out of their way to make us feel at home in Japan must also be acknowledged. I found the hospitality of our Japanese hosts almost embarrassing. It was only embarrassing in the sense that I wondered how we would reciprocate if ever they were to be our guests in Australia. I add as an aside that the weather throughout the trip was idyllic. As the program was arranged it gave all of us an opportunity to attend official receptions organised by the House of Representatives and House of Councillors, the Diet of the Japanese Parliament, and other receptions, as outlined by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, hosted by the Australian Embassy. I think it is useful to remember that the Japanese standard of living-accepted by the Japanese people as normal-and the cost of living in Japan are very much like those in Australia. As a consequence members of the delegation found themselves very much at home in the Japanese environment. It was also significant for us, as members of the deputation, to have the opportunity to talk to those people in Japan who are for us potential trading partners. The honourable member for Hindmarsh has outlined the emphasis on trade and tourism that was part of the delegation's function. I endorse these sentiments by adding that the program allowed those of us with an agricultural bias to spend some time talking to people likely to be our potential traders in Japan. There was an opportunity in discussions with the Japanese Department of Agriculture to talk about the all important questions of beef quotas. I guess we are all well aware of the situation of beef quotas in Japan. The briefing the Embassy staff had given us prior to meeting the representatives of the Japanese Department was entirely accurate. As the Embassy staff intimated, the Japanese people said they were keen to have Australian beef but the volume coming into Japan would be constant rather than increasing. It was then that the question was raised about further exports of mutton from Australia to Japan. The staff pointed out that one of the difficulties with mutton was that Japanese really have not developed a taste for sheep meat and that even promotion of sheep meat in Japan would be difficult because it would involve a change in traditional Japanese cooking habits. A fellow member of the delegation, the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), pursued the question of grain imports into Japan. He raised what was, for the Japanese, a very interesting aside when he suggested there might be opportunities for trade in buckwheat. The Japanese certainly agreed there were opportunities in the noodle and pancake market for expansion to accommodate more Australian buckwheat. They pointed out that another area of expansion related to lucerne hay and chaff for stock feed. Sadly our trade in wheat grain is likely to be static. The interview with trading partners in Japan also gave us an opportunity to pursue the question of horticultural crops. The requirement for ethylene dibromide fumigation that has currently become unpopular in Japan for health reasons gave us a chance to point out to Japanese counterparts that there could be opportunities to open up trade in Japan in view of the fact that there are fruit fly free areas in Australia that would not require the same elaborate levels of quarantine. I stress by way of these remarks the extraordinary opportunity that this tour gave the delegation to meet face to face with trading partners. I also say how much I appreciate the direct interest shown by Mr David Spencer, the Acting Senior Trade Commissioner, in precisely what was happening in Australian agriculture and the opportunities for Australian agriculture to expand into the Japanese market. I now refer to another major area touched on by the honourable member for Hindmarsh which I would like to elaborate on a little further. This is the area of defence, a very sensitive area to Japanese people because of their very unhappy experience in the Second World War. Honourable members will appreciate the importance of the question of defence to the Japanese community and the strategic importance of Japan to the Australian community. I quote from the delegation's report two paragraphs that relate to defence: The Japanese basic defence concept described in Defence of Japan 1983, a Defence Agency publication, is in two parts- (1) Prevention of Armed Invasion Japan's basic defence policy is to possess a defence capability of appropriate scale, to organise a system for the most efficient operation of such defence capability and to keep the credibility of the security arrangements with the United States and ensure their smooth implementation with a view to reinforcing a defence system proficient in coping with any type of aggression and thereby deterring aggression. And, Japan relies on the U.S. nuclear deterrent power to counter nuclear threat. (2) Countering aggression In the event of indirect aggression or an unlawful act using military power that could lead to aggression, Japan will take responsive action immediately to bring the situation under control at an early stage. In the event of direct aggression, Japan will take responsive action immediately to force back such aggression at the earliest possible stage through the comprehensive and organic operation of defence capability. In this case, Japan will drive away limited and small-scale aggression without outside help in principle. Even in case the scale and type of aggression makes it hard for Japan to deal with alone, Japan will continue strong resistance by every possible means until it gains co-operation from the United States in repulsing the enemy. I think we all appreciate the importance of defence treaties with Japan not only to the Japanese but also to Australian citizens. As the honourable member for Hindmarsh outlined, the visit gave us opportunities to talk with people of the Defence Agency, the Traffic Administration Centre and the Nippon Electric Co. and, for one member of the delegation, the opportunity to talk to peace classes in schools. Other members of the delegation spoke with people particularly concerned with the question of nuclear arms and nuclear power. There were opportunities for others of us in the delegation to speak with departments of agriculture, trade and industry and to see the Sakai factory of Nippon Steel. In the tourism area already outlined by the honourable member for Hindmarsh there were opportunities to see the shrines, temples and castles so unique to the Japanese community. The trip provided also an opportunity to meet the Japanese people themselves. The hospitality and very gregarious nature of the Japanese people was something I found pleasantly surprising. Whether it was in the foyer of the hotel or in the bullet train, no task and no request for directions was met with other than a friendly smile and assistance. I pay a tribute to the Japan-Australia Association, so much a part of hosting us when we were in regional parts of Japan. I also say how much I appreciated the role played, in a very low-key manner, by Mrs Scott, the wife of the leader of the delegation. Mrs Scott, who is a guest in the gallery, certainly proved to be a key that opened a number of doors in Japan that otherwise would not have been as easily opened. I thank the leader of the delegation for his consideration in allowing Mrs Scott to accompany the delegation. I am sure all members of the delegation will agree that, because of Mrs Scott's Japanese background, we were even more warmly received when she came with us to a number of civic functions. Finally, the delegation was an opportunity to get to know honourable members on the other side of the House and members of other political parties. I think it is worth placing on the record that some time in this House, some time working on parliamentary committees and, I trust, some time in delegations such as this, helps us to discover that this House, the Parliament and Australia are not really a community of them and us. There are a number of things we have in common. We realise there are a number of objectives and interests common to all Australians which we are endeavouring to pursue. The week away with this delegation only served to reinforce those ideas. I too thank Mr Pender for his function in keeping the delegation on time and seeing that the various needs of members of the delgation were met. I have to say that there were parts of the draft report about which I was unhappy. These were areas relating to defence, sex discrimination and nuclear power generation. I acknowledge that in those areas the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Hindmarsh, has not allowed his ideas to dominate in the final report. I am grateful for that consideration. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —by leave-I should like to pay a very deeply felt tribute to the leadership of the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) on the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan. It was a very difficult job because none of us had very much experience on delegations, particularly of the very formal type of the delegation to Japan. The honourable member for Hindmarsh was an excellent leader who was of great assistance to all of us and gave the Australian delegation a very good name in Japan. I thank him for his assistance. It was certainly delightful that he was able to be accompanied by Mrs Scott. I wish to mention three things which were of importance to me. One was the opportunity to speak with Mrs Tamako Nakanishi, a member of the House of Councillors in Japan and one of the 27 women members of the Japanese Parliament. The contact I was able to make with her and the continuing correspondence we have had gives us a point of contact in sharing news of importance to women, both in Australia and in Japan. In Japan the issue of sex discrimination legislation is important and is an area in which Japanese women are encountering some difficulties. It is of very great interest to me and to Mrs Nakanishi that we are able to share information about the progress of sex discrimination legislation and its reception in our respective countries. The discussion of nuclear safety issues was very instructive in one unusual aspect, that is, that it was completely open. One of the great difficulties about the discussion of nuclear power generation and uranium mining is that a great deal of the discussion is based on mystification, misleading statements, optimistic statements and-not to put too fine a point on it-lies. One gets the uneasy feeling that if that is going on there has to be something to hide. In Japan the discussion we had was very straightforward and open. The problems of nuclear power generation were stated quite openly and straightforwardly. It was of very great assistance to us to have that sort of discussion, honest and open as it was, to discuss problems such as nuclear waste disposal. For a nation which regards technological solutions to technological problems as something that is possible, and possible within a reasonably short time, it was instructive to know that the Japanese have not found that there is a technological solution to the storage of high level wastes which is practical in the future or even in the distant future. I might say that they were able to say that while they continued to stress the importance to them of nuclear power generation. One of the things they discovered about Australian uranium mining that had not really been brought to their attention before was the ecological problems we encounter here, particularly the risk of water pollution, which the Japanese regard as being very serious indeed. It is something about which we as Australians should be particularly careful. All the high schools and primary schools in Hiroshima have peace education syllabuses. I was able to visit a junior high school which has a particular interest in peace education as it was virtually totally destroyed by the atomic bomb in 1945. Part of its curriculum stresses the always poor results of aggressive behaviour on the part of nations. The Japanese are not afraid to blame themselves for their own actions and they are not afraid to accept consequences of those actions. They have suffered consequences from aggressive acts which no other nation has suffered. They are quick and consistent in making it perfectly plain that they know about the effects of nuclear war, that their children will know about its effects, and that nobody in Japan will be allowed to forget, or to put aside as unimportant, those effects. The school is engaged in a very carefully organised peace curriculum which goes into Japanese history as well as the events of the Second World War and following the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. One of the things the school does is attempt to trace the names of the children and teachers who were destroyed at that school in that blast. So far they have not been able to find the names of more than 100 of the 210 people who were lost on that day. I thank the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) and his sister, Miss Marguerite Wells, who assisted me in making contact with the school I visited- the Midorimachi Junior High School. I am grateful also for the efforts of the Foreign Affairs Department and the House of Representatives Department, which formalised the arrangements for that visit. It was very interesting to find that Japanese and Australian school children have far more in common than they have separating them, that they behave in much the same way, that they enjoy the same sorts of things, and that they find foreign visitors just as curious a phenomenon. I finish by saying that, although the Australian Ambassador was not in Japan at the time we were there, his wife, Lady Currie, is a superb ambassadress for Australia. I thank her for her hospitality and help. I add my thanks to those of the other members of the delegation to all the people who assisted us and for the very warm and courteous hospitality of the Japanese people. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —by leave-I join with the previous speakers in recording my appreciation to this Parliament for the opportunity to be a member of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation which visited Japan in October 1983. It was a great honour for me to visit one of the great democratic countries of the free world. It was an honour to be a visitor to many cities in Japan. It was a great honour to have the opportunity of meeting the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Nakasone. As the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) rightly said, the Prime Minister of Japan made his time available to speak with us, notwithstanding his extremely busy schedule. I was made aware forcefully during my visit to Japan that the destinies of Japan, Australia and New Zealand are inextricably linked. The fortunes of each of those three countries will continue to work in tandem and, hopefully, in harmony during the ages ahead. To that end, I was pleased to ascertain that the Japanese tourist industry is extremely keen to develop in the Japanese people an interest in visiting Australia and New Zealand. It was pointed out that some four million Japanese travel overseas each year but that only some 40,000 visit Australia each year. We constantly came up against a sense of inquiry in the Japanese people. Conditions in Australia, our wide open spaces, our flora and fauna, whether we had potable drinking water, whether we had interpreters at our hotels, were questions that were constantly put to us in the cities and places which we visited in Japan. To that end, discussions have continued here in Canberra with officials from the Japanese Embassy to develop a program whereby Japanese visitors can be encouraged to visit Australia through the north Queensland gateways of Townsville and Cairns. As I have mentioned in this House, later this year Air Pacific Ltd will establish a new air link between Fiji and Townsville. This will enable Japanese visitors to Fiji to connect through Townsville and thereby establish a lasting acquaintance with Australia. Japan is also Australia's greatest trading partner. Many discussions were held with various officials on developing new trade links. Trade between north Queensland and Japan was a topic of conversation at meetings that I had with trade officials in Tokyo. The hospitality of the Australian Embassy in Japan should be recorded as being unstinting. The courtesy and assistance rendered to the delegation by Mr Jim Pender, Mr Jones and Mr Kentwell of the Australian Embassy in Japan and by the wife of the Australian Ambassador must be recorded. To sum up, it was clear to me from my visit to Japan that not only will tourism links and additional trade links be developed between Australia and Japan, but inevitably-I should touch on this subject-in time we will see immigration from Japan to Australia. During my visit it was expressed to me that there were a number of suitably qualified, indeed I might say eminently qualified, Japanese who would seek to emigrate to Australia to participate in the great work in this country of building a bigger and better nation. I refer to that continuing work which is the destiny of us all. So to this Parliament I say: 'Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate in what I consider to be an historic delegation to Japan'. I record my gratitude for the excellent company and courtesy extended to me by my co-delegates. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I present the sixth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.13) —On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of facilities for a tactical fighter squadron, RAAF Base, Darwin, Northern Territory-Engine run-up facility. The proposal is for the construction of an interim engine run-up facility for the period that No. 75 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force, is based at Darwin and a noise barrier between the facility and a new maintenance hangar. The work is an element of a major proposal referred to the Public Works Committee on 21 December 1981 for the provision of facilities for the permanent basing of a fighter squadron at RAAF Base, Darwin. The Committee's third report of 1982 recommended construction of the work with the exception of the engine run-up facility. At that time the Committee was not satisfied that the design and siting of the facility would reduce noise emissions from aircraft engines to acceptable levels during testing. The Committee called for further investigation and advice to enable a further report to Parliament on this component. Honourable members will recall that last year the Hawke Government decided to proceed with interim works only at Darwin and that the permanent fighter base should be at the Tindal Base near Katherine. A $167m proposal for the Tindal Base was referred to the Committee in December 1983 and its report is expected to be tabled later during the autumn sittings. Details of a revised engine run-up facility on a new site at RAAF Base, Darwin, to provide interim facilities for No. 75 Squadron were provided to the Committee late in 1983 and in February 1984. The Committee has reported that there is a need for engine run-up facilities, that the site chosen is suitable and that the design of the facility is adequate. The Committee concluded that the proposed noise barrier should reduce to acceptable levels noise levels in a new RAAF maintenance hangar nearby. In recommending construction of the work, the Committee recommended that hours of operation of the engine run-up facility should be restricted to those permitted under noise pollution legislation and that all practicable measures be undertaken to minimise the impact of engine testing on personnel working in or around the maintenance hangar. The Department of Defence has already advised the Committee as to measures which can be taken to ensure that the facility will be operated at times and in a manner, designed to minimise noise nuisance, and I do not envisage that ther will be insurmountable problems for the period that the facility will be used. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $380,000 at January 1984 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning and construction can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.18) —I wish to indicate to the House, both in my capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Public Works Committee and as shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, my support for the motion moved by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). The Minister is to move three other similar motions: One is in connection with the munitions filling factory at St Marys, another is connected with facilities for the Australian frigate project at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard and the third is in respect of the construction of a new building for the Australian Film and Television School at North Ryde. While on my feet I take the opportunity also to indicate the support of the Opposition for the motions which will be moved shortly. I point out to the House that in the main the projects were initiated during the period of the former Government and some planning work was carried out during that period. I am pleased, therefore, that the present Government has decided to proceed with the projects as part of the Commonwealth works program. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.19) —On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford)-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Reconstruction of the pyrotechnic section at the Munitions Filling Factory, St Marys, New South Wales. The proposal is for the construction of six industrial-type single storey production buildings and associated engineering works and amenities buildings to accommodate improved and updated munitions filling equipment being acquired by the Department of Defence Support. The Committee has reported that there is a need to redevelop the pyrotechnic section of the factory, that the designs of the proposed buildings are satisfactory and that the sites selected for the proposed buildings are suitable. The Committee has recommended construction of the work in the reference at the estimated cost of $13m, at August 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning and reconstruction can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.21) —As I indicated to the House a few minutes ago, the Opposition supports this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.22) —On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of facilities for the Australian Frigate Project, Williamstown, Naval Dockyard, Victoria, Phase A. The proposal is for the construction of facilities essential for the construction of FFG-type frigates, and covers those initial works necessary for the efficient construction of the frigates. The major elements of the proposed work are as follows: Unit blasting facility, shipbuilding platens, upgrading of cranage, kevlar and painters' workshops, covering of parts marshalling area, modifications to dockyard store and miscellaneous engineering services. The Committee has reported that there is a need to provide additional facilities indentified to augment existing facilities for the construction of FFG-7 type frigates at the dockyard, that this work appears adequate and will supplement existing facilities, and that improvements in productivity should result. In recommending construction of the work, the Committee recommended that interim measures designed to optimise the utilisation of existing off-street car parks, including the provision of additional entry points, should be implemented . The estimated cost of the work if $6.1m at December 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning and construction can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.23) —This motion also has the support of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.23) —On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a new building for the Australian Film and Television School, North Ryde, New South Wales. The proposal is for the construction of new facilities on a site of 3.6 hectares of land at Macquarie University, North Ryde. The elements of the work comprise: Three television and film studios; seating for 250 in two small theatres; a dubbing theatre; two radio studios; an administrative library; training areas; workshops and research and technical support areas; landscaping and car parking. The Committee has reported that there is a need to provide new accommodation for the Australian Film and Television School, that the design of the proposed building is satisfactory and that the site selected for the proposed building is suitable. The Committee has recommended construction of the work in the reference at the estimated cost of $13m at August 1983 prices, provided that every effort is made to obtain financial support from film and television industry sources. The Committee asked that the government should review funding policies which do not enable organisations such as the Australian Film and Television School to experience real benefit from any external financial support . With regard to the school seeking cost recoveries from film and television industry bodies, I have been advised that a significant level of cost recovery has already been achieved through fees in the School's open program. In levying fees the School is seeking to maintain a balance between the users' capacity to pay for the courses and the meeting of its statutory obligations to provide training in film, television and radio broadcasting. As regards the wider issues canvassed in the report on the seeking of financial assistance from the Australian film and television industries, I am advised that these will be further explored by the School and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). These issues will obviously take some time to resolve and in the meantime it would be appropriate for the House to consider the matter of proceeding with the building proposal. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning and construction can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Commitee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.25) —I am again pleased to have the opportunity of indicating the Opposition's support for this motion to construct a new building for the Australian Film and Television School. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.25) —In the terms of the printed proposals which are now being circulated to honourable members, I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1984). I do so on behalf of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown). The proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1984 ) operate on and from 6 April 1984 and contain a variety of amendments. The developing country margin of preference applicable to imports of fireworks for the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan Province is being modified. In its report on Miscellaneous Manufacturing (Groups D, F and H) the Industries Assistance Commission had found that imports of fireworks from China which accounted for a major part of the Australian market had injured the local industry. Imports from Hong Kong and Taiwan Province had also been substantial. In view of this, the Government has decided that the duty on imports from all three sources should be increased from free to 15 per cent. The Canadian preference margin currently applicable to certain steel products will be continued beyond 8 Aprial 1984. The Current Margin of preference will be maintained throughout the phasing period applicable to the general tariff rates for these goods. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 also insert a new legal note to chapter 97 of the Customs Tariff Act. This note ensures that gymnasium equipment remains classified in that chapter and maintains levels of protection applicable to such goods. It also ensures that their classification is in accord with the views of the Customs Co-operation Council. The amendment to item 58.09 in schedule 3 is in a similar vein to the amendment to chapter 97. The Customs Co-operation Council has ruled that knitted lace is not classified in 58.09 and this amendment gives that ruling legal force in the Australian Tariff. Provision is being made in the tariff for imports of wooden furniture components from South Pacific Forum island countries to be granted duty free entry, subject to quota limitations. This is being done following requests from concessional admission for such goods from those countries. The wording of sub- item 39.01.5 in schedule 3 is being amended to remove an ambiguity which has been detected in it. Amendments are being made to the designation of certain countries and places eligible for declared preference country and developing country preferences. These changes are necessary following the granting of independence or the changing of the names of the countries or places in question . The final amendment contained in the proposals is an administrative one to correctly express two New Zealand rate references in schedule 5 in terms of the relevant tariff classifications set out in schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act. A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.30) —Before the debate was adjourned earlier this afternoon I was referring to the important priority that this Government attaches to roads. I pointed out that this year $1,233m is being made available for work on national highways, urban and rural arterial roads and local roads and that that amount represents a 45 per cent increase in Federal expenditure on roads last year. With reference to the detail of the amendment, which refers to the indexation of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund surcharge, let me repeat what I said earlier. It is clearly inappropriate for the Government to respond definitively to this issue at this time. It is properly a matter, as I am sure honourable members opposite recognise, for consideration in the Budget context. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating ) has pointed out on earlier occasions and as I pointed out earlier today, the Government will in the normal course of events give this matter further consideration in the context of the Budget and future road funding requirements. I conclude on this note: The deplorable state of Australia's roads is not something that has occurred since 5 March 1983. Responsibility for the deplorable state of roads in Australia today rests with those who constituted the conservative governments for some 30 years since World War II. I also deplore the attacks that have been made upon the employees of public road authorities. I think they are best described and are most to be deplored as they appear on page 1347 of Hansard. They were uttered by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), who stated that State road authorities tend to get too fat, too lazy and too bureaucratic. I find it incredible that members of the National Party of Australia, which purports to represent people who live and work in the country and in country towns, should have such an attitude towards the people whom they claim to represent-country road workers. I thank honourable members for the contributions they have made to the debate. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Bowen, Lionel McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. Mcleay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGuaran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E.Klugman, R. E. Coleman, W. P.Brown, Robert Connolly, D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the amendment (Mr Lusher's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Lindsay, E. J.Blewett, N. McHugh, J.Bowen, Lionel McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J.Keating, P. J. Adermann, A. E. Jacobi, R.Coleman, W. P. Klugman, R. E.Connolly, D. M. Brown, Robert Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) agreed to- That the question be now put. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(4.51) —As one who introduced the bicentennial road development program into this Parliament, I am terribly disturbed on a number of counts that the Government has taken the action it has taken. As the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) has pointed out, the Government will give away $491m between now and 1988 as a result of not passing on the value of the indexation to roads built under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act. I think it is a disgrace that, at a time when there is so much need and demand to improve the road system in this country, the bicentennial road program should have been dealt with in this fashion. It is not good enough for the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) to say that we did not make provision in the Act for indexation. We never had any intention of indexing taxes in the manner in which the Hawke Labor Government has indexed them. Mr Cadman —What they have done is daylight robbery. Mr HUNT —It is daylight robbery on several counts. It is daylight robbery against the taxpayers of this country and it is daylight robbery against the motorists of this country, who are contributing to a trust fund to benefit roads . I am also disturbed that the Minister has given in to the States on two counts . Firstly, he has allowed the State road authorities to get around the tendering and contract system for construction of highways and national roads. The State road authorities have never wanted anything other than the flexibility they have always had, a flexibility they have used for day labour purposes. I am certain that nobody in this Parliament, not even the Minister, would have his house built by day labour. Who in this place would have his home built or have work done by day labour? Most of us want quotes and most of us call for tenders. Most of us want the best value for the dollar spent, whether it be on roads, private construction, the building of a home or anything else. We are spending $5,000m a year on roads, all of it coming from either taxpayers or ratepayers through three sources-the Commonwealth, State and local governments. I think it is incredible that the public has now been asked to put up with a system that has not served this country well. Billions of dollars are being spent on roads in this country and billions of dollars are being wasted. We have only to drive around the countryside to see how day labour works. Plant is left at the side of the road for days on end, not being used. We have a tremendous opportunity to make the best use of the contract system. There is a shortage of work and a shortage of opportunities. One would have thought that the Minister and the Government would have stuck to the tender and contract system, which was working so well in the States. Sure, the State Ministers did not like it. They and their State road authorities wanted the flexibility the Minister has now provided them with to use the State road authorities' resources if they so wished and to use Commonwealth money to do it. The other thing to which I take great exception is letting the States off the hook so far as their public transport systems are concerned. This Bill allows the State governments to reduce their level of expenditure on public transport from their own resources and make up the difference from the bicentennial road program in capital purchases of buses and whatever. It enables them to keep fares down to a ridiculously low level for commuters in metropolitan areas, if you like, costing in New South Wales $1.8m a day. The State Transport Commission in New South Wales has a $1.8m a day loss. Just recently the State Government purchased no fewer than 200 brand new Mercedes buses from Germany and five ferries, including a hydroplane, for Sydney Harbour from the Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund. Sure, they can do it under the Act, but they are going to subsidise an ailing, inefficient transport system that is doing nobody any good. It is unbelievable that the Commonwealth Government would enable the States to subsidise their own inefficient transport systems in the way that they will under this arrangement. They should have been held to their end of the bargain. I think the Minister and his Government have destroyed to a very large extent the value of the disciplines that were inherent in the Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund. I thought this program would have done much to put our roads right by 1988. Mr Hollis —What did you ever do for roads in my electorate? Mr HUNT —What did I do for roads? The honourable member has asked the right man. The biggest boost to roads expenditure occurred while I was the Minister. The Government would not be able to boast about a 45 per cent increase in roads expenditure if it had not been for the bicentennial road program. I must say to my listeners in the Gwydir electorate that they had no hope at all until this bicentennial road program came to be. The people in my electorate have received a total of four bridges. The electorate covers one-third of New South Wales, and it has received four bridges from the bicentennial road program. I ask the Minister why he hates the north-western part of New South Wales. Why does he hate these country areas as much as he does? It is an outrage that this Minister and his Government have prostituted the purpose of the bicentennial road program and have given in so badly and so weakly to the pressures imposed upon them by some of the State Ministers and road authorities, who no doubt will use the program to subsidise their inefficient State public transport systems and get their own financial systems in order. I think the Minister has let the side down. I do not think he ever liked the program. When he was in Opposition, as shadow Minister he was one of the few people who questioned the bicentennial road program. I remember one of his colleagues coming over to me and saying: 'Why does Morris hate the bicentennial road program?' I said: 'Because he did not think of it'. I say to honourable members opposite that they should not be too hard on the program. I can assure them that it is the best thing that has happened for roads in this country. They must not let those State Ministers of either political colour put it over them or let the State road authorities go on with the old day labour approach, doing the job in their own style, in their own way, in their own time. If we allow that to happen we will see $5,000m a year from Commonwealth, State and local governments squandered in a way that I think shows contempt for the ratepayers and taxpayers in this country. Mr Groom —Does the Minister want views of Tasmanians? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the Minister for Transport proposing to close the debate? Mr Peter Morris —I am proposing to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —By speaking the Minister will wind up the debate. Mr Peter Morris —That is right. Mr Newman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister for Transport, who is at the table, has consistently gagged every Tasmanian who wants to speak on this important subject. We wish to say many things about this Bill. We have been here all day. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bass will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 4 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BILL 1984 AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR ( CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 3 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1984 and the Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering those measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.04) —The three measures which are before us-the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1984 and the Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984-form a package of legislation, some of which is of great importance, some of which is of less importance. The Opposition opposes the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill. The Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill is, of course, consequential and we have no view that we think necessary to express on that Bill. It is necessary to understand the essential objects intended to be achieved by the package which is before us, in particular the amendments to the Judiciary Act and the amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act. It has been said in the second reading speech of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) that the purpose of the amendments now before the House in relation to the Judiciary Act is essentially to relieve the work load of the High Court of Australia and to make some amendments establishing an office of the Australian Government Solicitor. The amendments designed to achieve a lessening of the work load of the High Court amount to these: First of all, the curtailment of all appeals as of right from State supreme courts of appeal; secondly, the curtailment of all appeals or, to be more accurate in each case, the abolition of all appeals as of right from the Federal Court of Australia; thirdly, enlarging the power to remit to include a number of areas of exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court so that the High Court will be empowered to remit to the Federal Court matters presently falling within its exclusive jurisdiction . The amendment is necessary to achieve that purpose because of the fact that these matters now fall within the High Court's exclusive jurisdiction. I will come back to those matters in a few minutes. I should like to say something briefly at the outset about the proposal to establish an Australian Government Solicitor. The proposal to establish the Australian Government Solicitor is a very difficult one to understand. One assumes that legislation is usually brought before the House with a purpose and that if one examines the legislation, whether one agrees with what it says or whether one disagrees with what it says, it at least will have an underlying purpose behind it and a purpose which is not simply cosmetic. The Deputy Prime Minister tells us and the explanatory memorandum tells us that it is proposed to replace the office of Crown Solicitor with this corporate body -the Australian Government Solicitor-as a firm name for Australian Government work. What does this achieve? What are the advantages? Where is the public demand for this? Where is the demand in terms of efficiency of operation? No explanation on these matters is given to us and none could be. It is purely cosmetic and we are going to have in place of the office of the Crown Solicitor a body without a soul to be damned or a backside to be kicked. I suppose there is something somewhere to be said for that, but on examination no argument appears except perhaps it may be-I do not know, this is simply speculation-that the desire of the Government is to eradicate any symbols which tie the Government to the Crown. Having disposed-- Mr Brumby —Haven't you read the Attorney-General's speech? Mr SPENDER —I have read the speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ), which is an astonishing piece of work when one considers how important the legislation is which is brought before this House and which seeks to justify-I now turn to the major question-the alterations proposed to the High Court's jurisdiction on the basis of work load and gives no information whatsoever to the House. I have sought to overcome that difficulty. I seek the leave of the Deputy Prime Minister to incoporate in Hansard three pages of statistical information on the work of the High Court. The information has been obtained by me from the office of the Registrar of the High Court. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PRINTER TAKE IN REPS EXTRACT 56/C PART TURN STATISTICAL INFORMATION Full Court 1980 1981 1982 1983 APPEALS HEARD Court Appealed 1. State Supreme Courts: New South Wales 16 18 12 17 Victoria 4 7 8 2 Queensland 5 6 8 9 South Australia 1 6 8 4 Western Australia 3 3 7 5 Tasmania . . . . . . . . 2. Federal Court 13 15 12 2 3. Family Court 1 1 1 1 4. Justice of the High Court 2 4 1 . . TOTAL 45 60 57 40 As of Right 21 29 36 29 By Grant of Special Leave 24 31 21 11 Special Leave Applications Determined Civil Granted 21 27 20 20 Refused 42 41 52 30 TOTAL 63 68 72 50 Criminal Granted 5 6 5 11 Refused 23 29 18 24 Reserved . . . . . . 2 28 35 23 37 MATTERS HEARD 1. Appeals 45 60 57 40 2. Objection to Competency of Appeals 4 2 4 5 3. Special Leave Applications 96 106 98 87 4. Order Nisi & Applications referred to Full Court 18 7 11 5. Demurrer )s. 18 Case Stated )Judiciary 6 3 5 9 Reference of Question of Law )Act 6. Section 40 Judiciary Act (Applications for Removal) 8 5 5 8 7. Section 40 Judiciary Act (Full Hearing) 6 2 9 5 8. Electoral Petitions . . 3 . . . . 9. Other Applications 1 5 9 11 184 193 198 174 JUDGMENTS Judgments outstanding at beginning of year 28 49 31 17 Judgments reserved 88 84 73 59 Judgments delivered 72 90 113 66 Judgments outstanding 49 31 17 33 Total sitting days of Full Court 105 105 106 104 STATISTICAL INFORMATION Full Court 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 APPEALS HEARD Court Appealed State Supreme Courts 58 36 48 29 40 43 35 Federal Court 1 4 5 13 15 12 3 Family Court 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 Justice of the High Court 1 3 3 2 4 1 . . Other 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL 64 48 58 45 60 57 40 MATTERS HEARD Appeals 64 48 58 45 60 57 40 Demurrer Case Stated 8 3 5 6 3 5 9 Reference of Questions of Law Order Nisi 10 11 9 18 7 11 9 Special Leave Applications (Civil & Criminal) 62 85 81 96 106 98 87 Section 40 Judiciary Act 1 4 5 6 2 9 5 Other applications . . . . . . 13 15 18 24 TOTAL 145 151 158 184 193 198 174 SPECIAL LEAVE APPLICATIONS HEARDCivil Granted 16 16 19 21 27 20 20 Refused 30 33 29 42 41 52 30 TOTAL 46 49 48 63 68 72 50 C.A.V. (Reserved) 2 1 . . 3 1 1 Adjourned . . . . . . 2 2 2 Criminal Granted 8 10 5 5 6 5 7 Refused 6 25 28 23 29 18 23 C.A.V. (Reserved at end of year) 7 TOTAL *4 35 33 28 35 23 37 JUDGMENTS Judgments reserved 73 77 78 88 84 73 59 Judgments delivered 103 74 87 72 90 113 66 Mr SPENDER —I thank the House. This is the sort of information that the Attorney -General, if he wished to inform the public and inform Parliament, should have put before the Senate and it should have been put before this House. It tells us of the kind of work and the work load of the High Court over the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. But the Attorney-General has not placed this information before us. What does it tell us? I will touch on only a few of the details which appear. It tells us that, in 1980, 45 appeals were heard by the High Court and, in 1983, 40 appeals were heard. It tells us that in 1980 there was a total of 63 special leave applications determined by the High Court. In 1983 there were 50. It tells us that there were 28 criminal special leave applications determined by the High Court in 1980 and 37 in 1983. Taking all of the matters heard by the High Court-I speak here of the Full Court-whether they be appeals, objection to competency of appeals, special leave applications, order nisi and applications referred to the Full Court, matters brought before the court under section 18 of the Judiciary Act, matters before the court under section 40, electoral petitions and other applications, we have 184 matters in 1980 and 174 in 1983. Incidentally, there were 105 sitting days in 1980 and 104 in 1983. That in itself does not show any marked increase in the work load of the High Court. On the bare figures, the work load would appear to be diminishing. But bare figures in themselves can be misleading. It is necessary to bear in mind that matters coming before the High Court these days can be of an exceedingly complex nature. The tendency is for very complex cases to come before the High Court. That can mean that the High Court has to spend more time determining a case than it would in the case of a fairly simple matter. Usually the average hearing time is within a day. Matters such as the dams case take longer. The dams case took seven and a half sitting days and the Chamberlain case took four sitting days. A great deal of time is required to write judgments in cases of that kind. Again, in order to put matters in context, it is worth while remembering that in 1983, whilst the actual figures declined, the Court gave judgments in a number of very important matters, such as the dams case, Chamberlain v. the Queen, the hospital contributions case, Sorby v. the Commonwealth, which was a case involving privilege against self-incrimination, Baker v. Campbell, a case of professional privilege, and two cases concerning bottom of the harbour legislation. I am indebted to the office of the High Court for assisting me with some information as to its workings. I suspect that the work load is increasing. I suspect that there is an inevitable upward trend in that work load. I am very sympathetic of the arguments put on behalf of the High Court. But I think, when we look at the Court and when we look at the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No.2) and what this Bill will achieve, we need to consider the High Court's place not only in our legal system but also in the Australian community. We need to consider the nature of the work load which it presently has and which it foreseeably will have and then , of course, the effect of what is proposed by the Judiciary Amendment Bill in taking away rights of appeal which presently exist. The High Court's place in our country and in our legal system is of immeasurable importance; it is the apex of our judicial system. The qualities of its members, the lucidity of thought and exposition that they bring to their work, the depth and breadth of learning which they have displayed over the years , have given the High Court an enviable and well-earned reputation throughout the world. It is a court of truly international stature; one whose stature far outweighs Australia's importance in world affairs. It is invidious to make comparisons with other State courts or with courts of the States but, for the purpose of the argument, I think I must. Some great justices have not been appointed to the High Court. I can think of Mr Justice Jordan, Chief Justice of New South Wales, who was a very famous lawyer. Generally, appointments to the High Court are the best we have and can offer. To the practising lawyer, in a hard case it is the court of final appeal. I am very glad that the appeals to the Privy Council have gone even though I have in the past profited from the existence of that appellate tribunal's jurisdiction over Australian affairs. Let us remember one thing: State courts are variable. There are good State courts and there are State courts whose quality is not so good. The great value of the High Court is that, as the final arbiter, it can be seen as the court controlling finally the operation of the court system within this country and the court that provides the final answer. If one is dissatisfied with the decision given by the court of appeal then one has a place to go. Honourable members should remember this: In the past there have been cases-it is not unusual-where the court of first instance reached one dicision, that decision was then affirmed by the court of appeal and the High Court then overturned both those courts' decisions. That will not arise in the future, save where special leave is granted. Let me say something about the work load. I think I have outlined the nature of the work load that the High Court presently has to accept; it is a very onerous one. But, assuming that, and sympathetic as I am to the views expressed by the justices since I suppose in some ways, as a lawyer, the High Court is one of my very few remaining illusions, when one looks at the effect of the elimination of certain appeal processes, one sees that there is a powerful case on the part of the average litigant or the non-average litigant to say: 'No, you are moving too quickly. You should not do this'. Dealing briefly with the power to remit, I was interested to note that the effect of what is proposed would be to enable the remittance of certain matters to the Federal Court now within the High Court's exclusive jurisdiction, but not matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth or a Federal Court. This Government intends to remit matters arising under any treaty or to empower the High Court to remit those matters. In general I have no quarrel with the power to remit; it is a very valuable power. But whilst treaties may be remitted, matters where a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought may not. Of course, we all know that the major way in which questions are brought up to the High Court-indeed, I believe the only way but I stand subject to correction-relating to industrial matters before the conciliation and arabitration tribunal for the purposes of determining whether that tribunal has jurisdiction, is by mandamus or prohibition. There is no reason at all why these matters could not go off to the Federal Court. That seems to indicate some kind of special treatment to the industrial interests of this Government. If there is another reason I would like to hear it. Moving on from remittance, what we now have in the important parts is the abolition of an appeal as of right and, in particular, the abolition of an appeal as of right under section 35(3) of the Judiciary Act. A corresponding amendment is to be made to the Federal Court of Australia Act. As matters presently stand, if the dispute is over a matter of $20,000 or upwards and it is a final judgment from the Full Court of a State Supreme Court, there is an absolute right of appeal. It is argued by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in their second reading speeches that it is not appropriate to judge matters on such a basis. It is said by them that it is generally acknowledged that a financial test is not really an appropriate test for determining whether there should be an appeal as of right. It would have been useful for the purposes of informing the public if the Attorney-General had turned his mind in his second reading speech to the history of the power in the Judiciary Act-the right in the Judiciary Act-to have an appeal to the High Court . Had the Attorney-General done so he would have found that when the Act was originally passed by this Parliament in 1903 it contained a provision which in effect corresponded with the provisions now before the House but in which the limit was 300 pounds. He would have seen that at various times there have been rather limited increases in the amount that gave the right of appeal. That was so until an amendment was made to the Judiciary Act in 1976 when the amount was $3,000. It says something about the validity of the argument that a financial test is not an appropriate one when we have had that test for 80 years or so. I do not suggest it is a perfect test. I can see the arbitrary nature of it. But who are the people who are going to go up to the High Court under the law as it now stands but who will be denied access to that court under the proposed new provisions? I give an example of a case recently which went to the High Court. It concerned an old man with bad eyesight who was involved in an accident. He went to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and received a verdict from that Court. He was then taken to the Court of Appeal and that verdict was taken away from him. The matter was purely a question of fact. In considering the rules relating to special leave applications and the principles laid down over the years one must remember that for one to succeed in a special leave application one must demonstrate that there are distinct features about the case which one has presented which make it special and which discharge, as it were, the onus of convincing the High Court that leave should be granted. The plaintiff in Henderson v. Public Transport Commission of New South Wales would, I should have thought, have in future no prospects of getting to the High Court, yet he did. The High Court restored the verdict of the trial judge. That was in a case decided on 5 November 1981. Another case of a similar kind concerned the State of South Australia v. Johnson, where again the appeal was allowed from a judgment of the Full Court. That was purely a factual case. The High Court said, in a joint judgment of that court, that in the end the decision has become entirely one of fact. Fact cases simply do not get to the High Court in special leave matters unless the fact cases are quite extraordinary. Clearly the consequence of what is proposed is the exclusion of the vast majority of cases where the Court of Appeal has gone wrong. That means therefore that there is no avenue left open. There is proposed to be substituted for the right of appeal in those sorts of cases, where the amount involved is $20,000 or more, a need to justify special leave being granted. As well there is a proposal to substitute certain rights in respect of constitutional matters, although I doubt whether those particular matters are really greatly affected. If I have time I will come back to that point. It seems to me that the substantial question is what is going to happen in cases concerning the average plaintiff who gets knocked down or is injured in his factory, who does not get justice out of his local legal system and who would have but one recourse, that being to the High Court? Unless he is able to establish that there are such special and distinctive features about his case that special leave should be granted his prospects of getting to the High Court in future are poor indeed. It can be said that he has had his day in court and it can be said that since he has gone through two courts-the court of first instance and the court of appeal in his State-he has had a fair run. I come back to what I said earlier. State courts in this country are of variable standards. They vary from State to State and they vary within the States from time to time. Anyone acquainted with the court systems of the States would know that at some times in a particular State there will be a very good court of appeal-perhaps an outstanding one-but at other times the court of appeal is of a far more mixed quality. In that case what is to be done? What is proposed is that the plaintiff or the defendant will be left essentially with no recourse except, as I said, where that person can satisfy the High Court that special leave should be granted. This affects not only the ordinary plaintiff-the person who concerns me is the blood and bones plaintiff, as it is said in the trade; the person whose body has been damaged and whose mind has been disturbed by what has happened to him-but also people who have important commercial transactions and who go to court about those transactions. Perhaps no great question of law is involved but a large amount of money may be involved. Millions of dollars may be involved. They also are to be denied access to the High Court unless they can establish that there is some special feature of their case which requires the examination of the High Court. I remind the House of how essential it is in a special leave application that the special features of that case be established in the application. It is on the applicant to make out a case. He has an onus to discharge and it is not an easy onus by any means. We know that it is proposed that the High Court go to Sydney and Melbourne to hear special leave applications, and so it should. If it is to be available only by means of special leave applications, effectively that means that anybody who goes to it must go through four hearings. These are, the hearing at first instance and the hearing before the appellate tribunal-be it the State appeals tribunal or the Federal appeals tribunal. Next there is the application for special leave and lastly, if that application is successful, the hearing before the High Court itself. Effectively what is being added in cases which would otherwise have a right of appeal to the High Court under the law as it now stands is the extra burden of a hearing just to get to the court itself so that the court can determine the case on the merits. We know therefore that that will make it even more costly. We also know that there will not be that superintendence of the decisions of the courts of appeal throughout this country that presently exists. That superintendence is of great value. We know that persons who should have their cases determined favourably to them and who, under the present system, would have the opportunity of convincing the High Court that something went drastically wrong and should be remedied, will be denied that opportunity. That is perfectly plain. To demonstrate it I used the illustration concerning the old man who was involved in an accident with the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales. I recall another damages case which I argued. It simply concerned a person, a human being who was damaged in an accident. Honourable members should see what happens. It taught me a great deal about many things, including the need to drive slowly and carefully. The man did not do very well in his own court system . He did not do at all well before the court of appeal. I cannot remember the name of the case-it was years ago-but I recall very clearly Mr Justice Jacobs saying, in the course of argument-and we were, I am glad to say, successful-'the court of appeal seems to have seen this case in black and white terms and not to have understood the greys'. One must understand that as one goes through the appellate process, the arguments become refined and the points emerge more sharply because the preparation of the cases cleanses out the dross and concentrates the mind wonderfully as one proceeds with the important points. It is surprising how frequently one can argue a case at first instance, argue it again in front of a court of appeal and find a point emerging before the High Court which seemed unimportant before the other courts but which becomes the determinant of that appeal. We are to be denied that ultimate recourse. We will not be able to say at the end of the day, as we could under the law as it presently stands: 'The court of appeal was mad. We will go to the High Court. The High Court will fix it'. We will have to consider very well and very closely whether there is a right, whether there are special features, regardless of the justice of the matter, which will entitle us to go before the High Court. I make a last point. I hope that we never see the High Court adopt the United States practice whereby the Supreme Court determines whether an appeal should go to a higher court on the basis of its own considerations, without hearing counsel. Our Court must never be closed to the public or to counsel. Superficially, the United States system may appear to be more efficient, but if one excludes counsel and the public one does not know how justice is being administered. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(5.34) —The Bill which is before the House tonight is known as the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), mentioned at length, the main aim of the legislation is to relieve the workload of the High Court of Australia . In future the High Court will consider all appeals which come before it and will grant special leave to appeal if in its wisdom it believes that special leave should be granted. It will be necessary to make out a case for the granting of special leave. I do not see that as being a more costly procedure than that which obtains at present. In a sense, I see it as a much more simple procedure. It saves the cost of preparing appeal books for appellants. It saves all the difficulties of gearing up for an appeal and then, after a short hearing before the High Court, having the appeal struck out. So I think it is a most efficient procedure in an age when legal aid is available to more and more applicants, plaintiffs and appellants. I remind the House that most appeals to the High Court are between companies and concern very esoteric issues, such as patent and customs issues and other such prosecutions. They are not, as the previous speaker would have us believe, all about Mr Henderson, a very worthy gentleman who suffered an injury. Most appeals are of a somewhat less exciting nature. I point out that the new clause 35A, which is proposed for the Judiciary Act, clearly states: In considering whether to grant an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court . . . the High Court may have regard to any matters that it considers relevant but shall have regard to- It goes on to say that the High Court shall have regard to certain other factors . But it clearly says that it may have regard to 'any matters'. The justices of the High Court are men who are chosen from the leading jurists in our nation. They will overview the applications which come before them regarding special leave. I will not belabour that point. I know that the Law Council of Australia, which is based in Melbourne, has been lobbying members of parliament, particularly the lawyers of Parliament, on this matter. I know that the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) has considered this matter. I want to touch on the important area of appeals from tribunals which involve pensions. Several people from the Ex-Prisoners of War Association saw me about the right to appeal from repatriation tribunals. They pointed out that the High Court in Law v. Repatriation Commission determined that the widow of a former prisoner of war who had started smoking when he was released from a Japanese prison camp and who ultimately died of cancer was entitled to a war pension. I inquired into that matter. I assured the Ex-Prisoners of War Association that there would still be a right of appeal from a tribunal or from a Federal court to the High Court on a matter of that nature because it was a matter of great public importance and because there is an important extension in the law which relates to war pensions. The Ex-Prisoners of War Association was concerned about the possibility that there would be no more appeals to the High Court in relation to pensions and war caused disabilities. The judges of the High Court have the right to consider all applications which come before them to see whether there is any merit at all in the proceedings rather than giving false hope to the applicants or being party to delaying tactics. From time to time insurance companies and other organisations delay payment arising from verdicts for their own purposes by appealing to the High Court. They run up unnecessary costs for plaintiffs who perhaps have been unsuccessful in a lower court. They then appeal right up to the High Court. We must look at the other side of the coin, which is that of serious delay for plaintiffs and for people who are denied verdicts because, as happens at present, there is an automatic right of appeal to the High Court if a verdict is worth more than $20,000. The other section of this Bill will establish the Office of the Australian Government Solicitor. I am pleased that this move is being made by the Attorney. Of course, it arose from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union which the previous Government established and which certainly rebounded on it because it revealed to the nation and to the world the quite incredible situation which existed in the Western Australian Office of the Deputy Crown Solicitor, where there was gross delay and incompetence and, in fact, far worse than that. These matters were dealt with. People have been dismissed. There was a national scandal in relation to the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office in Perth. I feel that the Attorney has tightened considerably the procedures in his Department. The idea is that the responsibility will not devolve on a Crown Solicitor any more. It will devolve on the Australian Government Solicitor who is defined in the legislation as being 'a body corporate'. That body corporate will be responsible for all Commonwealth litigation and all the matters which the Crown Solicitor's Office previously handled. I had the advantage of working in the Sydney office of the Deputy Crown Solicitor for many years. I served articles there to a quite outstanding and practical lawyer, Frank Mahony, who was a very sensitive administrator. Later I worked in private practice, and I believe that a lot would be gained by the staff in the Australian Government Solicitor's Office if they spent time working in private firms. It would also be an advantage for solicitors in private practice to work for the Government on an exchange basis, much as teachers exchange between one country and another. These are matters for the present Crown Solicitor who with the passage of this legislation will become the Australian Government Solicitor. The problem with the Crown Solicitor's Office has always been that it runs a large number of branch offices in each of the States, but it runs them at a distance from Canberra. It is the lawyers in the capital cities of the various States who have the carriage of matters. This is much the same as most of the running-down cases where decisions are not being made by the defendant, the other driver, but by someone from an insurance company. This is a similar situation. When the honourable member for North Sydney said that there was no demand to change the name to Australian Government Solicitor he seemed to have forgotten all about the bottom of the harbour cases, all the scandal arising from the Costigan report, and all the difficulties in the Western Australian Crown Solicitor's Office. There has been a thorough-going inquiry into the running of the Government's legal services and it has produced these changes. I again pay credit to the hard work and ability of all the people with whom I worked in the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor's Office, the people who spend their lives there working for the Government, the good, hard-working lawyers who end their careers without any assets to sell, with no goodwill and only their retirement to look forward to. These men and women work very hard for the Commonwealth and worry about their problems and the cases they handle. Getting back to the subject of the High Court, I was interested in the comments by the honourable member for North Sydney that the High Court is sitting on fewer days, or certainly no more days than it did in 1980. Under the new sitting arrangements this House is sitting for fewer days than it sat last year, but it is sitting for many more hours than it did last year. It is not a very satisfactory test to give us just a bland statement that the High Court is handling fewer cases. It is important that the judges of the High Court handle the really important matters in our nation and that the Court not be clogged up with automatic appeals on running-down cases which may be brought by insurance companies to delay the payment of damages to a successful plaintiff. This is one of the rights insurance companies have always had and one they have exploited in this country. The government insurance companies in some cases also ruthlessly exploited this right of automatic appeal to the High Court. Appeals to the High Court that have been brought by special leave have been criminal matters, matters where the life or the liberty-usually the liberty, fortunately, in our nation-of an individual is at stake. These matters normally proceed by way of special leave to appeal, and so they should. The judges look at an application and see whether there is any merit at all in the appeal. If there is, they use their powers to grant leave for the case to be heard. These matters are dealt with quickly; there is little delay. I feel that the Opposition is drawing the long bow in this House tonight by saying that the Government is acting reprehensibly in cutting out this automatic time-wasting procedure, which has been a problem to the High Court for a long time. This change has been made at the request of the judges of the High Court. I worked at the High Court as a clerk in the early 1960s, when Sir Owen Dixon was the Chief Justice. There were seven judges at that time and the number has not increased. They no longer perambulate around the nation as they did, which was a very time-wasting procedure. They would get down to Tasmania and might have only half a day's work. Nevertheless, they had to go. Mr Groom —Oh! Mr MAHER —That is not meant to be a criticism of Tasmania. It is a question of fact. It might be that there was only half a day's work in Brisbane, but they had to perambulate around the nation. That was very difficult and very expensive . Now the High Court sits in Canberra. I am pleased to hear that it will consider special leave applications in Sydney and Melbourne, the main centres of population. I believe the Opposition is drawing the long bow in saying that this is a retrograde step. The matters coming before the High Court will be considered by the judges in applications for special leave. Proposed new section 35A of the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) clearly states that the High Court may have regard to any matter in granting applications for special leave. The proposed new clause states: (a) whether the proceedings in which the judgment to which the application relates was pronounced involve a question of law- (i) that is of public importance, whether because of its general application or otherwise- If there is a question of law the matter can have public importance or otherwise . That would cover the situation mentioned by the honourable member for North Sydney. In considering any matter the judges would be able to look at a case such as the one the honourable member mentioned. Judges have complete, unfettered discretion to look at a case. The special leave applications are simply presented. Normally an affidavit would be prepared by a solicitor. If there was a judgment or transcript from the lower court these would probably be included and copies would be given to the judge or judges considering the question of special leave. At very little cost to a potential appellant a short precis of the case and the grounds for appeal would be looked at. Having worked in a court, having an appreciation of the high standard of justice we have in this nation, and knowing that the Australian populace expects the High Court to be the court which will overview all other courts and, as the honourable member for North Sydney said, ensure some consistency amongst the courts, I do not see any possible danger in this Bill. It is a step to stop the insurance companies from clogging up the lists in the High Court with their unnecessary, time-wasting, frustrating appeals for applicants who have been unsuccessful in a lower court. From time to time we have all been confronted by a constituent who has won a case, perhaps got a substantial verdict for damages in a motor vehicle third party personal injuries case, and has had an insurance company for some policy reason pushing on appeal from one court to another to try to stop the damages awarded in the judgment from being paid. Those are the people who will benefit from this decision. I assure groups in the community who are worried about it that this move will not in any way restrict or prevent appeals on other matters such as pension matters. Indeed, under the present law it is hard to see how one could appeal on a pension matter, as did Mrs L., the prisoner of war widow. I have assured the Ex-Prisoners of War Association in my State that an appeal on a matter of such public importance would be considered by the High Court. I am sure that the judges of the High Court in their wisdom would grant special leave. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure the House will pass this legislation. It covers two matters; the question of appeals to the High Court and changing the structure of the Crown Solicitor's Office, the Commonwealth's legal arm, to a body corporate, henceforth to be known as the Australian Government Solicitor. Debate (on motion by Mr Groom) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —I table, pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, the annual reports for 1982-83 of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation. The report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust includes the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1983, together with the report of the Auditor-General with respect to those statements. I also table for the information of honourable members, as I am required to do, a further report by the Auditor-General, drawing my attention to certain other matters of concern to him which have arisen in the course of his examination of the statements. Limited copies of these report are available from the Bills and Papers Office, the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library. Copies will be distributed to all members and senators as soon as they become available . I table as well the Report of the Inquiry into the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. Copies of this report are available and have been distributed. Having tabled the reports, I seek leave of the House to move a motion to authorise publication of the reports. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —I move: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the further reports of the Auditor- General on financial statements of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust for the year 1982-83, the report of the inquiry into the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the annual reports of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DAWKINS —by leave-The House will recall that on 7 December 1983, when I tabled a further report by the Auditor-General, which arose from his examination of the 1981-82 financial statements, I announced that there would be a thorough examination of the matters and that I would inform the House further on the matters raised by the Auditor-General on the conclusion of the examination. I established an inquiry into the Trust and appointed Mr J. V. Monaghan, a Commissioner of the Australian Public Service Board, to conduct it. The terms of reference for the inquiry were to examine and report on: (1) Those matters of concern drawn to my attention pursuant to paragraph (d) of sub-section 161 (2) of the Superannuation Act 1976 in the section-pages 5 to 23- headed 'Other Matters of Concern' in the report of the Auditor-General dated 11 November 1983; (2) any related matters arising in the course of the examination; and (3) such proposals as are considered appropriate for remedying any shortcomings that are identified. The inquiry was assisted by a consultant from Ernst and Whinney, who was appointed with the purpose of providing a private sector perspective. The report addresses both the specific matters raised by the Auditor-General and a range of concerns of a more general character. The general issues included matters of consequence in connection with the Trust's objectives, its relationship with the Commonwealth Government, its accounting and investment policies and the structure of the Trust. These issues are central to the operations of the Trust. It is clear from the report that the Government is indebted to the Auditor- General for bringing the whole operation of the Trust and its office to the attention of the Government. It is apparent that there have been substantial changes since the Trust's establishment in the nature of its operations, and that there are problems to be dealt with. The management and investment performance of the Superannuation Fund is important to both the contributors and the Government, and the contributors are entitled to be assured of the security and integrity of the Fund. While the report points to a less than satisfactory performance in certain areas, contributors will be reassured by the conclusion that there appears to have been no significant impairment of the security and integrity of the Fund. The inquiry has not found that the former Trust was reckless or incompetent in making investment decisions. It has, however, identified a number of serious weaknesses, reflected in confusion regarding the role of the Chairman, the failure to implement a fully planned, integrated investment strategy, inadequate direction and control of the office and dissension among senior officers. In examining the specific projects that were the subject of the Auditor-General's concern, the inquiry is critical of arrangements used to achieve tax savings for investment partners, and in a differing degree for itself, and of the failure of the Trust to record reasons for its decisions. The report also notes that the evaluation methods used, particularly in the property area, have generally been sound, but sees a need for improved management of existing assets and points to inadequacies in documentation and procedures in the Trust's office. For these and other reasons the report concludes that there should be an immediate increase in staffing with further consideration of staffing needs after the report has been considered by the Government. As will be seen from the recommendations contained in the report, the inquiry has covered a wide range of the Trust's operations including many areas of a technical nature, and has recommended changes to the Superannuation Act and/or the Superannuation (Investment) Regulations regarding specification of investment powers, prescription of interest rates applicable to contributors and other matters. I have already taken steps to establish a working party comprising representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Trust, the Public Service Board and my Department to advise on the further steps that will be required. I have in mind to introduce amending legislation during the Budget sittings. Meanwhile, I shall, in line with the first recommendation of the report, be bringing to the attention of the Trust the conclusions reached in the report. I shall also have my Department initiate prompt action, in association with other relevant authorities, concerning those interim measures that have been recommended in the report. In regard to the composition of the Trust, I note the references within the report to the valuable contribution made by Mr Hammond, the Chairman, and the then Trust in introducing innovation in investment policy, especially in building up the property portfolio, and that Mr Hammond has remained available to the Trust during the period of this inquiry, the work of which he has facilitated in every way. The inquiry has also pointed to the possible advantage in Mr Hammond's services remaining available to the Trust for a period. I note also, however, that the report expresses some serious reservations about Mr Hammond's management of the operations of the Trust, particularly in relation to its status as a government instrumentality. The report observes that Mr Hammond's personal style of doing business sits uneasily with the necessarily institutional character of the Trust. A government body, and one with functions such as those of the Trust, has of course to observe a number of management requirements which might not apply in other contexts. The Government will be giving immediate consideration to questions of staffing of the office of the Trust, the arrangements under which staff costs are borne, the composition of the Trust and the possibility of enlarging its membership, as well as the other matters which are to be referred to the joint working party. Since the inquiry was established, Mr Hammond has stood aside as chairman and Mr W. J. Smith has been acting in that capacity. The report of the inquiry notes the value of Mr Hammond's contributions to the work of the Trust, and I wish to express my personal appreciation of Mr Hammond's work in a period of difficulty and considerable change. The conclusions of the report, however, do not appear such as to justify reinstating him in his previous position. As a result I will, as the report suggests, discuss with Mr Hammond the question of his future relationship with the Trust. The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has agreed that for the time being the management of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation officers' superannuation fund will provide advice and support to facilitate the continued effective opeation of the Trust. I am most appreciative of the assistance offered by the Corporation at this time. The further report of the Auditor-General dated 30 March 1984 that I have just tabled with the 1982-83 annual reports, as with the similar report that I tabled on 7 December last year, deals with some technical accounting and investment matters and other more substantial matters concerning the performance of the Trust in relation to certain investment transactions. The Auditor-General concludes that his audit of the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1983 has done nothing to dissipate his concern that the management of the Trust does not appear to be of an appropriate standard of competence and professionalism. As appropriate action will shortly be taken regarding the conclusions and recommendations of the Monaghan inquiry, which address the concerns that have been raised in relation to accounting and investment policies and the management of the Trust, and bearing in mind in particular the urgent need, in the interests of contributors, for the Trust to return to full operational capability with the confidence of the financial community, I do not propose to establish a further formal inquiry into these matters. However, where these matters have not been fully addressed by the Monaghan inquiry and where there may be opportunity for remedial action, they will be carefully examined by the Trust and my Department in consultation with the Auditor-General. In conclusion I should like to record the Government's appreciation of the efforts of Commissioner Monaghan in his timely response, in depth and detail, to the necessarily urgent task of the inquiry into the Trust's affairs; my appreciation of the work of Mr W. J. Smith, previously Director of the Grievance and Appeals Bureau, who accepted appointment as acting chairman of the Trust during this difficult period, and Mr R. C. Davey, Commissioner for Superannuation, who has acted for almost 12 months as a part-time member of the Trust; and the Government's intention to ensure that the Trust resume full investment activity on a sound and effective basis as soon as possible. I also record that as representatives of the contributors, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other unions have been very helpful in the way in which they have co-operated with the conduct of the inquiry and indeed the other changes which have been necessary as interim measures. I thank the House. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-The statement just put down by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is a sizeable indictment-to put it at its very mildest-of the operation of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. When the matter first came before the House I thought there may have been a possibility that the findings of the Auditor-General might have been more in line with those of a statutory body, taking a Public Service view of some actions which were very much within the private sector. However, I noticed these words in the statement put down by the Minister: . . . there appears to have been no significant impairment of the security and integrity of the Fund. I am sure we would all be pleased to hear that. The Minister continued: The inquiry has not found that the former trust was reckless or incompetent in making investment decisions. That is probably the best way that it could be put. When one reads that there was dissension among senior officers within the Trust one sees quite clearly that it is not a happy party. Because of this alone it is time that the Government had a close look at the management of the Trust and the way in which the officers went about it. I note that the Minister proposes to put up a working party consisting of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Trust, the Public Service Board and the Department of Finance. There is no doubt that the Department of Finance and the Trust have a very significant interest in this matter. Because of the employment opportunities which will arise no doubt the Public Service Board will be involved. I can also see some reason for the ACTU being involved. However, I totally fail to see why the composition of a working party such as that would neglect to take on board a competent financial group, wholly independent, which could make a business assessment of what is going on. If one is dealing in trust management, if one is dealing in property management, if one is dealing in share management, quite clearly a merchant bank, a chartered accountant or someone who can provide detached management advice is needed. I am surprised and shocked that that is not taking place. Quite clearly Mr Hammond has made a contribution and has changed the total style of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. I think that is well known. His style has not mixed with the way in which the instrumentality has worked. However I do not believe that people who take on these positions should be allowed to run free and fast. I hope that if he is to be retained the job specification will be well and truly set out to him and that he will be told that those specifications must be made to work. Along with that, the officers within the Trust must work in co-operation and with a single purpose. If there is dissent among senior executives of any corporation or trust it is bound for disaster. No wonder this Fund got into the state it did. I am similarly concerned because it appears that in the short term we have turned to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to run the Trust. If that is the case why not extend that principle, put the Trust out to tender and get the best professional management we can in Australia for this sort of investment? Today in Australia there is very competent investment management. I would never have said that in the 1960s, and the same would have applied in the early 1970s. But I am bound to say that in the 1980s the degree of professional investment has risen quite markedly. Through the advent of the merchant banks, through the advent of substantially better training and substantially more expertise and experience gained by Australians overseas, we do have in the country today a very wide group of people who could be asked to submit tenders for the management of this Trust rather than go about restructuring what appears to be an unhappy team and to persist with the type of program that is in hand. The second letter from the Auditor-General to the Minister, dated 30 March 1984 , when lined up with some of the comments that have come back from the Trust in response to the comments made by the Auditor-General, certainly show some disturbing factors. I find the treatment in the accounts given to the Willows Waterworld property in Townsville hard to accept in commercial practice. I found that the group concerned with the Western Australian properties which failed to meet its rent and at the same time put that rent on interest bearing deposit and paid half of the interest to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund had an innovative way of going about things. I also found the way in which the Chatswood Property Trust transferred the amounts involved and slipped $11m off the end not related to the equity base to be innovative. I certainly found the position in relation to currency hedging unusual. On the final page of the Auditor-General's letter to the Minister he stated: On the occasion of my earlier report I noted that I was not calling into question the soundness or propriety of investment decisions since it was not my function to do so. Nor am I able to do so now. I would, however, observe that it is time for the Trust itself to undertake a major prudential examination of its investment portfolio, of the arrangements it has made for the detailed management of the portfolio and, indeed, of the philosophy that has governed its investment policies and practices. From reading the pages that preceded that comment that is an understatement of some of the practices that have been going on within the Trust. I am pleased that this has come forward. I urge the Government to take action in this area. We cannot have other people's funds, which we invest in a trust, handled in what I would regard as a pretty slap-dash manner. I urge that the working party be expanded to embrace commercial expertise and that consideration be given to the question of putting the Trust into the hands of a professional management team rather than attempting to staff it here in Canberra with public servants who, with the best will in the world, are certainly not trained in investment. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —by leave-The Government will establish a new National Film and Sound Archive. The Archive will preserve moving images and recorded sound as part of Australia's twentieth century cultural heritage. The Archive, based on the existing film and sound archives presently located in the National Library of Australia, will develop presentational material such as literature and artefacts relating to the history of Australian film and recorded sound. It will contain facilities to encourage public and industry access to the collections, and for screening old films for public viewing. The National Film and Sound Archive will be made administratively independent of the National Library immediately, and will initially be an office within the Department of Home Affairs and Environment reporting to that Minister which, of course, is me. Its staff and finance will be separated from the National Library immediately and its accommodation as soon as possible. The position of Director will be established and advertised nationally. A National Film and Sound Archives Advisory Committee will be appointed to develop planning for the future development of the Archive. It will advise the Government on a range of matters including accommodation, staffing, regional representation, appropriate charges for services, preservation program and timetable, relations with the industry and trade, and deposit requirements. The Advisory Committee will be asked to report within 12 months of its appointment. The Government has also decided to provide increased resources in the form of staff, funds and equipment to develop the Film and Sound Archive. The increased resources should permit preservation of more nitrate film and the handling of newer technical conservation problems. The new National Film and Sound Archive will be more accessible to the public and the film industry. Offices will be opened in New South Wales and Victoria and the Advisory Committee will examine the desirability of opening offices in other States. The National Library's management of its holdings of film and sound recordings has been criticised but I think this criticism is unfair. It must be remembered that the Library took the initiative to preserve this vital inheritance. The Library, as a whole, was restrained by its allocation of resources from the previous Government, but its film and sound sections have received at least a fair share of those limited resources and some, apparently unrecognised, success has been achieved in building up the collections and establishing a working relationship with the industry. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Harrison Bryan, the Director of the Library, and the Chairman of the National Library Council, Dr Forbes, who are in the gallery at present. Nevertheless, the Government has decided that there is a need for a separate institution with a charter of its own and guidelines established by the Government after consultation with all the interests concerned. In addition, an interdepartmental committee will inquire into and advise on policy generally concerning all the Commonwealth's holdings of film, sound recordings and related issues. Policy advice will include matters such as the co-ordination and rationalisation of all Commonwealth activities in this area-acquisition of material, cataloguing, conservation, reproduction, access arrangements and co- ordination with relevant State and private sector interests. There are many complex issues involved in the consideration of how other Commonwealth holdings of film and sound recordings will relate to the National Film and Sound Archive. In view of these issues, and the need for consultation, the Government will consider the requirements further after receiving the reports. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby) —by leave-This is a somewhat extraordinary decision because of the convoluted logic contained in the statement by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). Naturally, I have consulted my colleague Senator Martin, the shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, about this matter. There has been much speculation in recent months as to the future of the film archives. This has been the result of concern about the risk of our losing, through deterioration, valuable and irreplacable early Australian film records. The National Library has claimed that insufficient government funding has led to this situation. Today the Minister says that he believes that criticism of the Library is unfair. Nevertheless, the Government has decided to remove the film archives from the Library immediately, and without, really, the amount of consultation that one would have expected with the National Library Council by the Minister. I understand that the inclusion of the sound library was hardly discussed at all and was really a surprise parallel factor to the shifting of the film archives. The Government's decision to remove immediately from the Library the Australian film archives staff and finance and to transfer them to an office within the Department of Home Affairs and Environment is startling to say the least. A number of options have been publicly canvassed in recent months. More money could have been given to the National Library, with a direction that it be used for the benefit of the film and sound archives. Other alternatives were to place it with the Australian Film Commission or the Australian Archives. The Government has decided on a course which will need much greater public expenditure-removing the archives from whatever independence it enjoyed as a part of the National Library and making it part of the bureaucracy. One must conclude that this could be the worst possible option. It saves no money. Indeed, it will cost more than several of the alternatives. It does not assure any form of independent cultural development, and it runs all the risks inherent in becoming part of the bureaucracy, as I have already mentioned. Only time will tell whether this arrangement will meet any of the criticisms that were made in regard to the previous one. However, all things considered, the Government should not be surprised if public reaction is sceptical about the haste, the lack of consultation and the very great expense that will be incurred in this particular arrangement. Mr CROSS(Brisbane) —by leave-I followed with considerable interest the statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). I am pleased that he indicated that he thought that the National Library's management of its holdings of film and sound recordings had been criticised unfairly. As the representative of this House of Representatives on the National Library Council, I hope that that defence of the Library by the Minister will be translated into additional assistance for the Library in the Budget for the year ahead, because the problems that he is trying to address are problems that the Library has been trying to address in very straitened financial circumstances over a considerable number of years. It is true that the Library has in recent times been criticised about the situation of its map collection. Of course, in no small measure that has been brought about by the deferment of additional accommodation for the Library by the previous Government, and, as in so many other areas of administration in this country, there are long-standing problems to be redressed. I trust that the recognition by the Minister that the Library is not at fault in this matter will mean that he will continue his support in the Budget Cabinet to get a greater degree of financial assistance, because there are other problems, and the problems will not be solved by dismembering the national collection. They will be solved by increased government support. One of the arguments of the people who sought to establish a separate national film and sound archive was the fact that the film and sound archives were submerged within the National Library, a statutory corporation, and had no separate identity. I do not think that the decision made at this time has addressed that problem, and I do not think that it is the last that the Minister will hear of that problem. [COGNATE BILLS: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT BILL 1984AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR ( CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1984 and the Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(6.19) —As you have mentioned, Mr Deputy Speaker, the House is debating the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No.2) 1984, the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1984 and the Australian Government Solicitor ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. I shall concentrate my remarks on the first of the Bills. It has two purposes: Firstly, to relieve the High Court of Australia of some of its work load; secondly, to establish the office of Australian Government Solicitor. I want to comment on the establishment of the office of Australian Government Solicitor. As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) quite rightly pointed out, the Government has not explained the real reasons why it is establishing such an office. Earlier we heard a speech from the honourable member for Lowe ( Mr Maher), who attempted to suggest that this office is being established because of comments made by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I could not quite follow that argument. It seemed to me not to make much sense. The real reason is that this Government is attempting to take us very quickly down the path to a republic. That is the real reason for this decision. In recent times a number of decisions , the purpose of which have been to cut our ties with the Monarchy, have been made. Later this evening we will resume the debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. Part of that Bill-I will not go into the details-seeks to drop the oath or the affirmation of allegiance which up to this point new citizens in this country have been obliged to make. Mr Leo McLeay —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that the honourable member is pre-empting debate on a Bill which will be debated in the House later this evening. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Braddon. Mr GROOM —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can understand the honourable member's sensitivity about this issue. This is an important point. The Government is attempting to hoodwink the people of Australia. It is trying to create the image of a responsible government when underneath this is a lot of radical action to change some of the great institutions and great traditions that we believe in in this country. Let us take, for example, the Australian flag which Australian servicemen carried onto Anzac Cove, which Australian service men and women have carried into wars and conflicts in which we have been involved and which Australian team members have carried with pride to the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games held during this century. All around Australia, in each part of this great country, in the Territories and the States, members of the Australian Labor Party make speeches calling for a change in our national flag. A local senator down my way in Tasmania said: 'Let us have a green and gold flag with a kangaroo on it'. Mr Leo McLeay —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to relevance. This might be a wide-ranging debate but I do not think there is any connection between the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the sort of flag we may have in the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order is upheld. I ask the honourable member to come back to the Bills before the House. Mr GROOM —I was just explaining the Government's real motives for changing the flag and at the same time in the Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill changing the title of our Crown Solicitor to the Australian Government Solicitor. Surely members of this House can see the connection between those two actions. I just warn the Australian people-it is no good warning Government members because there are not many in the House at present- about what is really going on behind the scenes. A number of actions of this kind are taking place at present. Much of the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) is concerned with the High Court. It is suggested by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that one of the purposes of this Bill is to relieve the High Court of some of its work load. I do not see that as a very good reason for changes of this kind. Why would one want to relieve the work load of the High Court? The inference is that the High Court judges might want to do less work, might want to have time for other things. This House should take action to ensure that the High Court can effectively carry out the proper functions that it is given under our Constitution. That should be the objective of the legislation. The objective should not be simply to relieve the High Court of its business. The High Court, of course, is a Federal court. I think we should consider that point when we consider the work load it carries. I was most disappointed in the comments that were made by the honourable member for Lowe, who has since left the House, when he criticised the fact that justices of the High Court from time to time go around to the different States of Australia to hear cases, appeals and applications of various kinds. He implied that it is quite wrong for the High Court to travel, for example, to Tasmania. He said that there is no business in Tasmania. But Tasmania is one of the original States. We are entitled to protection under our Constitution and we look to the High Court for protection. Let us look at the dam case. I do not want to go into that in too much detail but it was a very important case, as has been mentioned earlier. It took some days to be heard by the High Court. In that case the justices were not looking at certain precedents to determine the decision they should make. They were swayed, obviously, not only by their understanding and interpretation of the Constitution and the law but also to some extent by their feelings and philosophies. When such a fundamental matter as that one is being decided by the High Court it is obvious that the judges will be influenced by their fundamental philosophies and feelings and the atmosphere around the place. I wish to make two points about that. They are very relevant to the Judiciary Bill. It is important that justices travel around Australia and do not just sit in this new building-I think it is far too imposing-on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin. They must get out and about and visit the various States to understand the feelings in those States. I think if they can do that, as they have done in the past-I do not criticise them for it-they will have a better appreciation of what the Constitution is all about. It is not just about Canberra, as the justices quite rightly appreciate, and it is not just about Sydney and Melbourne . The Attorney-General has said that under these new arrangements, with people seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court, there might be sittings in Melbourne and Sydney. The High Court and the Constitution are not just about Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra. They are about the outlying parts of Australia as well as the major centres. I am disappointed at this stage in our history, 81 years since the High Court was first established in 1903, that we have not yet had one Tasmanian appointed to the High Court. I do not think South Australia has had a High Court justice either. I hope that before too long we will see people from those States being appointed to the High Court. It will mean that the High Court is truly representative of the total Australian community and that justices of the High Court will perhaps have a better appreciation of the feelings that exist in this country and a better understanding, therefore, of the real purpose of our Constitution. That purpose, in its fundamental sense, is to keep Australia secure and to ensure that the Australian community remains satisfied and happy with our institutions, particularly our governmental institutions. That is a very important point. One of the purposes of the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) is to change the existing appeal provisions in the Judiciary Act 1903 so that a matter involving more than $20,000 which has been dealt with by a State Supreme Court-perhaps by a single judge and later the Full Court-cannot as of right now be taken to the High Court on appeal. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr GROOM —The House is cognately debating three Bills-the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill and the Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill. I have already made some comments on the first of those Bills, the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2). Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I had referred to the restriction on the right of appeal in that Bill. The Bill will remove the existing right of appeal to the High Court from State Full Courts in respect of appeals involving cases where the value of the subject matter being considered is $20,000 or more or involving the interpretation of the Constitution. The effect of these relevant provisions will be that no appeal will lie from a State Supreme Court to the High Court otherwise than by special leave of the High Court. Along with a number of honourable members of this House who happen to be lawyers, I received representations in the form of a letter from the Law Council of Australia expressing some concern about those measures. I can certainly understand the expression of concern in those representations. On balance, I believe that it is not unreasonable to expect that the High Court should concentrate on matters of real consequence. I do not believe that the monetary test is the best test. There can be matters that involve more than $20,000 which are of no real consequence in terms of the general community, although they would be of real consequence to the individuals involved in the particular appeal. There always has to be some end to the judicial process, whether it be before a single judge of a Supreme Court or a Full Court, or whether it be before the High Court. Obviously, aggrieved parties who are not satisfied by the results of an appeal will remain aggrieved. There has to be some point at which the system says that a matter has gone far enough. I think it is not unreasonable to expect that the High Court might be best able to judge these matters by way of determining an application for special leave to appeal. If the court is to retain its great reputation in the international legal world, not just within Australia but certainly overseas as well, I think it is fair enough that it should be able to concentrate its skills and its talents on matters of real consequence to the community. I think in concentrating on those sorts of matters the Court will best serve the general Australian community. I do not oppose that aspect of this matter, although I am concerned about the costs involved. As has been pointed out by other speakers, including the honourable member for North Sydney in a very fine address on these Bills, there is the problem that appellants, the parties involved and their counsel, have to make a journey to the Court to make an application for special leave to appeal. If they are successful, they have to take the further step and be involved in the further expense of going to the appeal proper and making the appeal to the Court. From memory, in the second reading speech the Attorney-General said that it is likely that there will be an opportunity for people to make these applications in Sydney and Melbourne. The problem there is that sometimes parties in outlying States such as Tasmania are aggrieved, and they might want to make an urgent application for special leave to appeal. There is an added expense involved in travelling to the High Court building in Canberra or to Sydney or Melbourne. It would be unfortunate if people in certain parts of Australia were disadvantaged compared with people in major centres such as Canberra, Sydney or Melbourne. I think generally we can be very proud of the High Court. As I have said before , it has a great reputation which has developed since it was established in 1903 . It is a very important part of our whole constitutional framework. I agree with the words spoken by Alfred Deakin, the first Commonwealth Attorney-General, when he said that the High Court was the keystone of the Federal arch. Therefore , it is important that this Parliament considers how we can best ensure that the High Court is effective and efficient. It is not just a matter of trying to lighten the work load. I think it comes back to a question of how it can best serve the community. We should make the necessary administrative arrangements, procedures and rules for appeals to ensure that it carries out its functions in the best possible way. I do not want to continue my remarks at great length. I again refer to the point I raised earlier about the establishment of the office of the Australian Government Solicitor. As I have said before, reasons that I do not think carry weight have been given for establishing this office. I would like to know from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is seated at the table, why this title has been decided upon. Why is it to be called 'Australian Government Solicitor'? Why do we drop the title 'Crown Solicitor'? What are the reasons for this? Surely the people of Australia are entitled to an explanation of that decision? It is no good just talking about the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. We understand that there were administrative problems and questions of efficiency in the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office, but those difficulties could be overcome without changing the name. It makes one wonder what is going on behind the scenes. What moves are afoot? Why are we perhaps offending Her Majesty the Queen in this way by dropping this title? I do not say that lightly when one considers the Constitution and the role of the monarchy in the Constitution. She is the Queen of Australia. I believe that we should recognise that fact and show her due respect. I believe that this measure is an offence to Her Majesty. I think honourable members opposite should be very concerned about what they are doing in that regard. I do not think many of them really understand what they are doing. This is a measure of great significance, along with other steps that have been taken, including the other measure that perhaps we will debate later tonight, if we have the time -the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill and the changes that are being made there to the oath and affirmation of allegiance. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(8.09) —It is often suggested that there are too many lawyers in this Parliament. I am not sure that I agree, or indeed that the Whip would agree, with that suggestion because I think he has had some trouble persuading some of the eminent lawyers amongst us that they should give us the benefit of their legal wisdom by speaking in this debate. It is a very important debate. I am pleased to see that my fellow members of the legal eagles faction on this side of the House-the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), all excellent members-have or will be speaking in the debate. There are about eight former lawyers on this side of the House and that represents about 10 per cent of our numbers. I do not think anybody could seriously suggest that that is too many. I believe that all the lawyers in this House, not only on this side but also on the other side-I can see the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) nodding in agreement-have made a great sacrifice in coming here. I refer not just to great monetary sacrifice; I am referring to the alarming drop which occurs in our honesty and ethical rating when we change from being lawyers to being politicians. The Morgan gallup poll seemed to indicate that lawyers have an honesty and ethical rating of about 40.5 on its scale. I regret to say that federal politicians have an honesty and ethical rating of 16. There is an alarming gap of 24.5 when one turns from being a lawyer to a politician. It is very disturbing. I think I have the solution to the problem. Mr McGauran —You leave the House. Mr REEVES —I could leave the House but I will not be doing so. I see that the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) is proposing to leave the House to return to the law. That will take his personal rating up from 16 to 40.5. I suggest as well that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) might consider leaving the House and returning to law. That would take his rating from 16 up to 40.5. It might also take up our rating as politicians. The Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the two cognate Bills deal with two matters. One is the establishment of an Australian Government Solicitor and the second is the removal of the as of right appeal to the High Court. I will deal first with the question of the Australian Government Solicitor. Opposition speakers have claimed that there is some plot involved here aimed at insulting the Queen. Nothing could be further from the point. The fact is that the office of Crown Solicitor presently is a personal office. The Crown Solicitor in Canberra currently has professional responsibility for all actions carried on throughout Australia by his office. When one considers that the Crown Solicitor' s office is currently involved in some 11,000 cases around Australia it is easy to see that the Crown Solicitor has an awesome responsibility. The Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill will replace the personal office of the Crown Solicitor with a corporate entity. That will allow a decentralisation of this professional responsibility. In future the officers in charge of regional offices will bear the professional responsibility to the courts for the conduct of actions in their particular regions. It has been possible for legal firms in the Northern Territory to incorporate for some years now. The Bill will simply form the new Australian Government Solicitor into a corporate entity similar to incorporating a legal firm in the Northern Territory. In view of the patchy history of the Crown Solicitor's Office under the previous Government it is reasonable for the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to rearrange and rationalise the legal services performed by that office for its clients. This Bill will do exactly that. I turn to the second aspect which relates to the removal of the as of right appeal to the High Court. I have been approached, as I believe have all lawyers in this House, by the Law Council of Australia and also by the Law Society of the Northern Territory. I want to quote from a letter I have received from the President of the Law Society of the Northern Territory outlining the concerns that that society has about aspects of the legislation. The President, Mr Bradley, said: In the territory, we have no Full Court of our Supreme Court and therefore one of the appeal processes presently available to all of the other people in Australia, is not available to territory residents. Access to the High Court for Territorians has been regular in recent years, and of reasonable frequency having regard to the population living in the Northern Territory. I believe that such access for Territorians is of fundamental importance having regard to the emerging nature of our law and the relative uncertainty of much of the modern legislation affecting Territorians. I therefore urge that you consider the Bill which I understand to have been presented before the Senate. If you do not reach the conclusion that the Bill is not in the interests of Territorians, then I invite you to meet . . . The two points the President raised concerned the absence of a State court of appeal structure and the special position of the Territory's legal system in dealing with an emerging body of law and modern legislation. The Federal Court of Australia currently operates, in effect, as a court of appeal from the Northern Territory. When appeals are heard by the Federal Court one Territory Supreme Court judge serves on that court of appeal. Given that, I think that there is some merit in the claim that the Territory should have its own court of appeal. In the past it has been difficult because there have not been enough Supreme Court judges to form a court of appeal to allow appeals from one of their number to go to three of the others. The position of Aboriginal Land Commissioner has been established in the Territory for some time. Additional judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court. There are five judges of the Territory Supreme Court and there are proposals to increase that number with the appointment of one or two land commissioners. I should add that land commissioners are also judges of the Territory Supreme Court. So with their appointment there will be six, possibly seven, judges of the Territory Supreme Court. That is enough to allow the establishment of a Territory court of appeal. I believe that that will overcome the problem raised by the President of the Northern Territory Law Society better than the proposal not to remove the appeal as of right from this legislation. The second matter raised by the President of the Law Society is the question of the special position of the Territory's legal system in dealing with an emerging body of law and modern legislation. While he does not say it, I think that one of the pieces of legislation to which he would be referring is the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in the Northern Territory. There have been numerous appeals to the High Court by the Northern Territory Government concerning that piece of legislation. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is at the table. I am sure he can confirm that the Northern Terrritory Government has been very active in litigation concerning that piece of legislation. Most of those appeals -to use a broader term-really involve writs of mandamus or prohibition to the High Court. This legislation will not prevent the Northern Territory Government or any other party from taking that course of action in future to the High Court . All it will do will be to allow the High Court to remit particular cases which it considers not to be of great public importance to the Federal Court when it deals with Aboriginal land rights claims. So the legislation will not drastically affect the right of people or bodies in the Northern Territory to refer matters to the High Court. Another matter which has been raised is the costs involved in travelling from the Northern Territory to make applications for special leave to appeal. The Attorney-General addressed this matter in the debate about this legislation in another place. He proposed a consideration of video conferencing to allow the people in outlying States to make their submissions to the High Court by way of a video conferencing link, from the Darwin to Canberra, Darwin to Sydney, or Darwin to Melbourne. The second area that the Court is considering is a wider use of written submissions. So there are two areas that are being considered which may assist in reducing the cost to people in outlying States and Territories in making applications for special leave to appeal. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has consulted with the Law Council of Australia about this piece of legislation. Indeed, he has indicated that the legislation will be reviewed not later than two years after its introduction to see whether it is operating effectively. In its letter the Law Council of Australia raised a number of its concerns relating to the legislation. I will not deal with them all because I will not have time. I will deal with some aspects of the policy of the Law Council of Australia. The letter states: If a monetary criterion is adopted, then the present limit of $20,000 should be raised. Further, the law should be that the appellant must show that the result of the appeal may advantage him in the requisite sum; that is a stiffer test than the present one. That is the case except that it ignores the basic concern that is being addressed by this legislation, that is, that the High Court should really be dealing only with matters involving the application of the law in areas of public importance where the Court has some belief that the law is in need of examination and has not been properly stated by the courts below. That is one area. I suppose the second area is where a miscarriage of justice might have occurred in a particular case. So this piece of legislation is aimed at those two areas. We can go on increasing monetary levels until we are blue in the face, but that will not really address the basic concerns that are covered by this piece of legislation. The second aspect of the Law Council's policy is this: Consideration should be given to providing an appeal as of right where the appeal court below is divided in opinion, subject to a mechanism to exclude appeals raising purely factual points. The position is that a division of opinion in the decision of a full court really does not necessarily indicate that there is a real doubt as to the state of the law. The question may not be one of any general or public importance. This gets us back to the basic criteria or concerns that I addressed just a few moments ago. The third area covered by the Law Council of Australia is as follows: The Full Federal Court should be given jurisdiction to entertain any application for a prerogative writ which may at present be made to the High Court, with an appeal by special leave to the High Court. The Federal Court has now been given jurisdiction to entertain applications for prerogative writs except for reviewing decisions of the various Commonwealth industrial tribunals and the Family Court of Australia. This is the fourth area raised by the Law Council in its policy: Appeals to the High Court should be permissible in cases where special leave is presently necessary or will become necessary under these proposals, on the certificate of the appellate court from which the appeal is brought that, in its opinion, a point of law of general importance is involved or that the point is one which ought to be considered by the High Court. The Council is proposing that in the appeal from the Federal Court to the High Court the Federal Court should determine whether the special leave to appeal should be allowed. I understand that proposal was not acceptable to the justices of the High Court, and it is not surprising because it is not consistent with the view that the High Court should be able to decide what significant matters should come before it on appeal. The fifth area of the Law Council's policy states: A right of appeal should be granted in criminal cases with respect to any ground relating to a point on which the appellate court below was divided in opinion, but only where the applicant has been sentenced to life, or to a term of imprisonment of five years or more. At present, of course, criminal appellants have to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court, and the Law Council is suggesting that that be watered down somewhat. Again, I refer to the comments I made on the basic criteria for the matters that should come before the High Court and the concerns that are being addressed by this Bill, that is, that the High Court should be dealing only with matters of public importance where the High Court believes that the law is in need of examination or has not been properly stated by the court below, or that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in a particular case. A number of other points are raised by the Law Council's policy, but I do not have the time to address them at this stage. It has been difficult to obtain accurate statistics as to the level of appeals as of right which are dealt with by the High Court. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I understand, produced some figures earlier in the debate. But I believe it is still difficult to glean from them exactly how many of the cases are being dealt with by leave. Mr Spender —No, but the figures are all there. I did not have time to read them all out because they are fairly long. Mr REEVES —I see. The Attorney-General in his comments in another place claimed that, in 1981, 40 per cent of all appeals came as of right; in 1982, 60 per cent of all appeals heard by the Court were as of right; and in 1983, 64 per cent of all appeals were heard as of right. While he referred to the difficulty in ascertaining exactly how many of the total number of matters dealt with by the High Court involve special leave to appeal, he said that generally somewhere between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of the Court's total workload, measured by the number of cases it is hearing, involve appeals as of right. The concerns expressed by the Northern Territory Law Society and also the Law Council of Australia I believe have been dealt with by the Attorney-General, both in consultation with the Law Council of Australia and in the legislation. I note that after considerable concern was expressed and discussions took place about what criteria should be applied when considering whether to grant an application for special leave to appeal, the Attorney-General agreed to amend the Bill in another place to spell out the criteria involved. That is now contained in proposed new section 35A and it refers again to the criteria I mentioned before: Basically, that the proceedings in which the judgment to which the application relates involve a question of law which is of public importance, whether because of its general application or otherwise, or that they involve a question of law where differences of opinion between different courts or within one court as to the state of the law have occurred. It also expresses as a criteria whether the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in the particular case, require consideration by the High Court. I think the concerns have been dealt with by the Attorney-General, and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members I wish to make a brief statement regarding Hansard 'greens'. For the past four sitting weeks the Parliamentary Reporting Staff has been producing the House of Representatives Hansard on word processors with the purpose, among other things, of providing members with 'greens' unencumbered by handwritten corrections. Unfortunately, it is now apparent to the Principal Parliamentary Reporter that under the new system it is not possible to provide 'greens' to members without considerably extending the time between delivery of a speech and delivery of a 'green' of that speech. In many cases it has not been possible to provide a member with a copy of his speech until long after the House has risen for the day. Basic to the concept of a daily Hansard is a member's ability to check the typescript of his speech. As this basic principle is now jeopardised by the late provision of 'greens' to members, I have directed the Principal Parlimentary Reporter to revert to the system previously used for production of Hansard. I felt I should interrupt to report that matter to members who have spoken to me about it. [COGNATE BILLS: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT BILL 1984AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR ( CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.31) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving forthwith a motion of censure of the Government for its attempt to mislead the Parliament and people on the significance of its endorsement of the strategic basis paper and to deceive the Parliament and people on its deep divisions over the basis for developing Australia's defence and strategic policies. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion for suspension in writing? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, it is seconded by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). The Oppositon feels compelled to move for the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders because an extraordinarily serious matter is before the nation this evening. Honourable members will recall the publication in the National Times last week-I show it to honourable members to remind them- of an exclusive article headed 'Australia's New Defence Strategy'. The article contained what is termed the strategic basis for Australia's defence policy. Throughout the week this Government has sought to prevaricate, to hedge, to obfuscate that endorsement. Tonight a paper has been produced, again in an edition of the National Times, in which the truth is stated about what Cabinet really decided, and this is the reason for the Opposition moving for the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders. On the front page of the newspaper is a simulation of the Cabinet submission and it alleges that the Minister has put this on the cover of the Cabinet submission in regard to the timing and handling of the announcement of the decision: No specific public announcement is required but I shall present the policies outlined in SB83- which is this document- in my public statements on defence matters. I shall present the policies. The reason we moved for the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders- Mr Young —Mr Speaker, to save hearing this speech twice, the Government agrees to the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders to allow the Leader of the Opposition to move his motion. Mr SPEAKER —I have to go through the formalities. I take it that the Leader of the Opposition wants to move to the censure motion and not the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders. Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the motion. Mr SPEAKER —The motion is seconded by the Leader of the National Party. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.34) —I move: That this House censures the Government for its attempt to- (1) mislead the Parliament and people on the significance of its endorsement of the strategic basis paper and, (2) deceive the Parliament and people on its deep divisions over the basis for developing Australia's defence and strategic policies. I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Young) for taking this substantive motion immediately. I will not reiterate my criticisms which I have already gone through in relation to his determination as to whether and how he will accept this as a censure, but let me say that the terminology of this censure motion says it all. We censure the Government for its attempt to mislead the Parliament and people on the significance of its endorsement of the strategic basis paper and to deceive the Parliament and people on its deep divisions over the basis for developing Australia's defence and strategic policies. The deception is obvious. The editor of the National Times, Mr Brian Toohey, in the forthcoming week's edition of the National Times, the 6 to 12 April edition, at page 3 headed 'What Cabinet decided', sums it up fairly well in the first paragraph. As he has indicated in the overflow column, Ronald Reagan has got in ahead of us. He has written to him asking him to join forces, which is some force of support. The first paragraph of this story is worthy of quotation: The Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, has broken new ground with his claim this week that a document can be endorsed by Cabinet without the Government agreeing with any of the policy descriptions contained within it. The reality is that at page 4 of this document there is what is alleged to be the Cabinet's endorsement of the strategic basis paper. The secret Cabinet minute is set out in this document. Firstly, week after week there are leaks of matters of the highest order, the very basis of the Government's defence planning and the policies endorsed by it for the formulation of broader approaches in the field of defence and foreign affairs. Secondly, there has been the denial throughout this week from no less a person than the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) himself that there was any endorsement of these policies. What he said in this Parliament was not the truth. What he said in this Parliament was a lie. Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in relation to this document. He said: To the extent that a document of that title- it having been referred to earlier- was considered by Cabinet last year, it was, as the Attorney-General stated in another place on Friday- I ask honourable members to listen to the next words- simply endorsed- It is no longer endorsed, confirmed or approved; it is simply endorsed- by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence polices. As is well known, it is not a policy document, but to the extent that any policy prescriptions are contained in it, these were not specifically endorsed by the Cabinet. We have established by the effluxion of a week's time that what was being denied this time last week as being an unauthenticated document is now authentic. We now have the publication of a secret Cabinet minute which starts by saying: The Cabinet-(a) endorsed the strategic basis of Australian defence policy. There is no evidence that this document was returned to the officials who formulated it with further query. There is no evidence that in fact there was any disagreement with it. There is no evidence that in fact anything other than an endorsement was given to that paper. We have known by oral testimony, so to speak, in the words of Air Marshal McNamara, that this document exists, that it has been endorsed and that he agrees with it. So we proceed another step. We have the lies and the deception earlier on about the document which has now been authenticated by extrapolation of verbiage of Ministers and by Air Marshal McNamara himself; beyond that we have the leaking of such highly sensitive material; and beyond that we now have the confirmation by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) during the week that this document was nothing more than a document akin to a road map to help one get through the streets of Brisbane. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been such a joke in his conduct of foreign policy that we are, regrettably, virtually a non-entity in international relations today because he does not comprehend the firm elements of the paper that the Defence Committee put forward and that the Cabinet endorsed-a factor that cannot be overlooked. I say bluntly that the material that was produced in the National Times last week, which appears to have been authenticated, could be endorsed by every honourable member on the Opposition benches. It goes to the heart of our international relations. It deals realistically with the scenario, globally, between the Soviet Union and the United States. As I said two days ago, unless one understands what one's global appreciation is, one will not get one's regional relations right. That is the reason why the Foreign Minister is wanting to pour cold water on the document. But the reason that the Prime Minister wants either to deny that the document exists or to deny that the policies have been endorsed is that he is fearful that certain people who proclaim themselves as men and women of principle on the left of his Party will reject the elements rightly endorsed by this Government. The deception is a deception not merely of this side of the Parliament or of the Parliament as a whole; it is a deception of all honourable members sitting here and a deception of the Australian people. Members of the Government ought to come clean and say publicly what they have said privately-that they agree with what was in the document, they agree with the scenario put forward by their defence committee-and not obfuscate and lie over a period of a week as to, first, whether the document existed; secondly, whether they had endorsed it; and thirdly, whether they were going to treat it as anything more than a guide, a directory, through the roadways of Brisbane, as the Foreign Minister has said. The strategic basis is a policy document. Let us not muck about. The policies that are contained within a basis that is put before a Cabinet are endorsed, rejected or questioned further. On this occasion they were endorsed. We say, properly so. But behind it all have been the lies and deceit of a government in not affirming that to the people or to its own Party. Where do members of the Government really stand on the question of non-proliferation, despite all that they have said? Where do they really stand in regard to the Western alliance? As I said the other day, if they accepted and endorsed what was contained within this strategic basis, they would recognise that their peripatetic role as a broker regarding Vietnam cannot stand up. They should recognise that we are part of the Western alliance, and recognise that the invasion of Cambodia was the invasion of a client of the Soviet Union upon a client of the People's Republic of China. If members of the Government do not comprehend the Sino-Soviet dispute or the global dispute, they cannot get that relationship right, and they do not get it right. What we have is a further series of documents from a government that is chronically unable to retain the nation's secrets. Although the Prime Minister has accused the National Times of lying about the strategic basis paper, the truth is now out. It is now clear that the attempt by the Prime Minister and the Government to discredit this particular newspaper is a desperate effort to cover up what is rapidly becoming one of the most serious instances of Cabinet ineptitude and internal divisions that a government has faced in this nation. These revelations show that the statements of not only the Prime Minister but also the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in another place, attempting to disown the document, are little more than the circumlocution of men trapped by their actions. The fact is that that strategic basis paper was endorsed and was accepted by the Cabinet without question. An endorsement means just what it says . It was endorsed. It was confirmed. It was accepted and they sought to shuffle away from it. The tragedy of the sloppy simple-minded way in which the document was obviously accepted is reminiscent of other examples of disregard of the responsibility which a Minister of the Crown must carry in this country. I wonder whether Cabinet engaged in a long boozy lunch before it passed the strategic basis paper through the Cabinet without so much as a whimper. We recall the wondrous event before that meeting. But to put it in the context of what these men were addressing some hours after we had won the America's Cup, it was the basis for our entire defence planning. There are three Ministers in the chamber. They endorsed the step down the line to Australia obtaining nuclear weapons and they have not got the guts to say so. It ought to be a matter of deep concern, after a week of revelations of the ineptitude of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), the conflicts between that Minister and the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe)-incidentally, they are also brought out in the further edition of this newspaper-and the lengthening string of specific blunders in defence and foreign affairs, that the nation now learns that the Government is in total confusion about where it stands on fundamental policy matters. The fact is that the Hawke Government has no defence policy and it is incapable of formulating one. It leaves Australia rudderless in defence planning; of that there is no doubt. What we have now, in view of the Foreign Minister's rejection of the Defence Committee's strategic assessments is that there is no other conclusion to be drawn than that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has sought this week to reject that paper if one refers to what I mentioned before. On 3 April he compared the strategic basis document and the notion that it was endorsed for guidance purposes with the use of a telephone directory and a street map of the Brisbane area. Obviously we are faced with an ongoing struggle about the validity of strategic advice to the Government from its top bureaucrats. It is a sad day when I come into the Parliament with revelations of the deepest magnitude so far as the defence planning of this nation is concerned. After a week of shuffling about and denials from the Prime Minister down as to whether the policy was endorsed, it is clear that that policy was endorsed. The document as a whole was accepted by the Cabinet and endorsed by that group. I said that the leaking of the document a week ago would certainly be the most damaging revelation in terms of our national intererst in my time in politics. From that moment on, people have sought not only to indicate disapproval with what was contained in the allegations but also to imply that there was no endorsement of policy. Today's issue shows that to be an absolute lie. In regard to the Cabinet decision I want to refer to two statements. On 2 April the Minister for Defence said: The strategic basis document has never been adopted by any Cabinet as policy. He went on with this extraordinary gobbledegook and said: Policy statements are made by the Government and by Ministers and are publicly announced where it is appropriate to do so. The document, as has happened on each occasion when the document has gone before Cabinet in the past, is endorsed as guidance for the preparation of recommendations on defence policy. The fact is that documents such as that relating to the defence basis have been returned by Cabinets before. Other Cabinets have shown more than a passing interest in what is to be the formulation and the basis of their defence and foreign affairs program. They have questioned them, sought further information and argued about them. That is a reality which we know about. We also know that the Prime Minister said on 2 April: To the extent that a document of that title- honourable members should listen to these words- was considered by Cabinet last year it was . . . simply endorsed by way of guidance . . . As is well known, it is not a policy document, but to the extent that any policy prescriptions are contained in it, these were not specifically endorsed by the Cabinet. What the Opposition is drawing attention to this evening, therefore, is, firstly , the leaking of the most fundamental assessment that the defence committee of this nation can make and the fact that it was endorsed by the Government; secondly, that the lies that the Government has maintained for a week that that document was not endorsed have been proved to be absolutely false, that it was accepted by the Government, seemingly without question; and, thirdly, that differences have been propounded by the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister simply to try to draw attention away from the fundamentals of this document. Either members of the Left who are in this Parliament at the moment will have the guts to say to their leftist friends in the Ministry, 'Did you endorse this or not?' or there are grave ramifications for these men of principle. But not for me. I do not think there is a person on this side of the House who would not give warm endorsement to the document as we have read it to date. Not a person. If that is the case, why does the Government not endorse it also? It has endorsed it privately; why does it not endorse it publicly? How can one endorse but not endorse? I question how one can say they are not policies, as the Minister for Defence has said, when his very document said: I shall present the policies outlined- in this particular document- in my public statements . . . The reality is, therefore, that they are policy matters, as for years the matters addressed were to be the subject of policy documents, for the formulation of further material and policies and that there has been obfuscation and lying by this Government because it wants to keep the truth away from the Australian people. If one is honest in endorsing a document, why does one not tell the people? Why does one not tell the Parliament and why does one not tell one's own Party? It is because one knows the divisions that rankle. The Minister for Defence Support has revealed himself, for example, as one, like the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), who accepts the Judas money. Thirty pieces of silver or putting him into the Ministry will buy that man off. His attitude is: 'Give me an extra quid and I will forget about my principles. I will not even be dinkum with the fellows who elected me to Cabinet'. I do not give a damn for the espousal of leftist policies, but I give a damn for my nation and for what is contained within this document. I endorse what is in it. Mr Hayden —Little Nell. Mr PEACOCK —Why does the Foreign Minister not have the guts to get up, for example? The poor little fellow. No wonder he was trampled on in the manner that he was 14 months ago. He did not have the guts to stand up for himself. He was rolled by a man who has twisted him to such an extent that the fellow who stood in here espousing an enlightened view of the world compares a strategic document with a Brisbane street map. The Foreign Minister ought to be condemned for the words that have come out of his mouth this week and for accepting without question matters which he is now questioning in public but which he had no courage to question in the Cabinet or in the parliamentary party. That is the reason-the denials that have occurred-why we seek to censure the Government for the misleading statements and the attempts to deceive the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party)(8.55) —Yes, Mr Speaker. There are two serious elements in this censure motion. The first is that the Government has endorsed, in private, the strategic basis paper which was presented to Cabinet on the morning after the America's Cup success. We all know of the euphoric mood in which all of Australia welcomed that victory. We all know the sleepless night we all enjoyed. We all know how the Cabinet, that following morning, must have considered the paper. But let us look at how it considered it and the endorsement that it was given. Secondly, and more significantly, we censure the Government because today's revelations in the National Times show that the Government endorsed the paper in private and denied it in public. We have heard this over and last fortnight. The divisions within the Australian Labor Party show the contrast between, on the one hand, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who apparently will respond to this motion, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). In a moment I will show honourable members what each of the Ministers has said. We need to remember that the man who apparently will respond to this censure motion claims that he was not present on the occasion when this strategic basis paper was considered. Of course, his own permanent head is a member of the defence committee. This paper is prepared by a defence committee, not overnight, but after prolonged and close consideration of all the options that are presented to it by the Department of Defence and by the top security departments of the Government. The conclusions are reached and the paper is presented. The statement with Cabinet's endorsement is simply headed 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy'. There are no recommendations. It is called the ' Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy'. Cabinet endorsed that paper called the 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy'. What has happened is that this Cabinet has endorsed the defence policy. The Foreign Minister, whose permanent head was a member of the committee that made the recommendations, had the opportunity to go back to Cabinet to seek its rebuttal. But no, what happened? It is only as a result of the publication in the National Times last week that we heard the Foreign Minister compare the article to a telephone book. No wonder the Left is leading, because that is where the mole comes from. I want to get to that in a minute. What the Foreign Minister has done is progressively try to disavow himself from the affirmation of Cabinet. What he has done is try to ensure that he has distanced himself from his Cabinet colleagues. What he has done is say that he does not trust the advice of the Chief of Defence Force Staff. What he has done is say that he prefers the advice of Des Ball of the Australian National University. What this man is doing in public is denying the principal advice of his Department, of the Defence Department, and of the top security agencies of this Government to Cabinet in a paper which he, through his permanent head, has endorsed. We have heard from the Chief of Defence Force Staff that the Foreign Minister has other advisers. So the two elements are that first, in private, the Government has endorsed the strategic basis paper and, secondly, in public it has denied it. A third point is that the Foreign Minister and his colleagues of the Left are showing their true colours. That is what this motion is all about. The very thin facade of Hawke Labor is beginning to show itself in true colours. Let no one be mistaken; there is not unity on the other side of the House. We have the new centre left regime. We have the aspirant to the Prime Ministership sitting at the table. We have the man who we have all heard through the book entitled The Hawke Ascendancy, was stabbed in the back. This is his comeuppance. This is his big opportunity. He will show where the priorities to the Left lie. He will show the people of Australia just what sort of attitude he has towards the nation's defence. What has really occurred in the Australian Labor Party is that somebody within the Cabinet has decided that he cannot wear the private endorsement of the responsible strategic basis paper which analyses properly, and with total responsibility, the defence situation this nation faces. So what has happened? Just as we know about the discussion in the car park, somebody has a relationship with Brian Toohey that mirrors the relationship with Eric Walsh that Mr Justice Hope said so much about. This is all about the left wing ratting on the Government; and well it might for the Government's views need to be very carefully looked at. We need to know what was in the submission of the Minister for Defence. Let there be no doubt about it; on that particular day there was a strategic basis paper and Cabinet submission No. 392 from the Defence Minister made recommendations on its endorsement. Honourable members should just listen to what it says. The document states: Cabinet's endorsement of SB83 is necessary to the defence review that I wish to conclude as soon as possible . . . No specific public announcement is required-- Of course not. Cabinet was going to keep it in private. Honourable members should remember that the left wing was not prepared to live with it. The document continues: No specific public announcement is required, but I shall present the policies outlined in SB83 in my public statements on defence matters, and state our position . . . to the Parlaiment in late September/early October. What happened is that through Brian Toohey the left wing said: 'Hey, whoa there. This is a responsible strategic basis paper. We are going to have to face spending money on the nation's defence. We will suddenly have to match up to the consequences of having an endorsement of a responsible assessment of the threat situation in our region. We are not going to be able to live with a rundown defence force that my colleagues first revealed in this Parliament early last week'. Of course, what has happened is that this Government is winding down the operative end of the Defence Force. Honourable members will remember that this Government has taken away Defence Force training opportunities; it has removed the fuel for ships to go to sea and the fuel for the aircraft for flying. Progressively over the last 12 months it has reduced the operational capability of the Australian Defence Force and the left wing is afraid that this document will require the Government to start spending money as it should. We find in this submission, first, that the position is not just as the Prime Minister has said. Honourable members will remember that he said it was simply a recommendation to Cabinet. He said that no specific endorsement has been given. He said that it is simply an endorsement for the purpose of developing defence policy. That is not what the decision says; that is not what the submission says . The second interesting thing in the strategic basis paper in the National Times last week related to the comments regarding the whole field of nuclear capability. Honourable members will recall that phrase that developments relating to nuclear capability in countries within Australia's neighbourhood should be monitored in order 'to ensure that the lead time for Australia could be matched to developments in other countries should the Government so decide'. There is no mention of that in the Scholes submission, the submission of the Minister for Defence. There is no mention of that in any of the answers we have heard. We had a comment from the Prime Minister in the Parliament the other day. On page 1164 of the Hansard he is reported to have stated: . . . nor has the Cabinet or any cabinet committee discussed the possible development of a nuclear capability by Australia. That may be. But Cabinet has certainly discussed or should have discussed the question of developments relating to the nuclear capability in countries in our region. I wonder whether it was intentional or whether it was just by accident. In Cabinet decision No. 1265 there is no mention of the nuclear capability facet . I wonder why. Is that the reason the document has leaked? What has happened is that the Government has now been revealed. It has endorsed a responsible submission and no Labor member is prepared to acknowledge it. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) consistently in this House has tried to walk away from it. The Minister for Defence has tried to move away, too. He said that the strategic basis document has never been adopted by any Cabinet as policy. He knows and acknowledges that earlier governments have looked at the stragetic basis paper and said 'No, we do not agree with it. We will send it back. We will get it changed.' The Minister for Defence said so himself; but not this Government. This Government endorsed the paper that was before it. No matter that Government members had been up all night, no matter that they were in the euphoria of the America's Cup result. The point is that this paper was endorsed; it was not changed; it was not sent back; the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not ask for it to be reviewed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs' permanent head was on the committee that decided it. The Minister for Defence's permanent head and the Chief of Defence Force Staff were on the committee that recommended it; the permanent head of the Treasury was on the committee; the permanent head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was on it. They endorsed it. Every one of those Ministers, if he acted in his job responsibly, should have known of the contents before it went to Cabinet. It is no use the Minister for Foreign Affairs, like Judas, coming into this place consistently over the last week comparing the document to a telephone book . It is no good his talking about the fact that it was just something that could be distributed like any sort of public document and that it did not really count for anything. We all remember the headline, 'Hayden slams cornerstone of leaked defence paper'. Here is this Judas trying to say these things about a paper of which he was part and whose permanent head contributed to its preparation. If he is anywhere near exercising his proper responsibility, of course he should have known what was in it. It is no use his now saying he prefers Des Ball to Neville McNamara. Neville McNamara, of course, is the Chief of Defence Force Staff. He is the man who under legislation is charged with providing military advice to the Government. If the Government does not accept the advice it can send it back . But of course it did not reject the advice; it accepted it. What happened was that Government members had that meeting, they had a recommendation, and my colleague the Leader of the Opposition referred to it. One has only to look at the title: 'Strategic Basis of Australia's Defence Policy'. There were no recommendations. It refers to Australia's defence policy. It was a Cabinet decision. There is no question about its just being recommendations, some waffly paper that does not matter. What this paper has done is to lay down responsibly directions that this nation's defence should take. What these Ministers are doing is walking away from the public responsibility for the private decision that was required of them. Not one of them now is man enough to acknowledge that he was privy to it before it went to Cabinet. Not one of them is man enough to acknowledge now that the Cabinet endorsement, which thanks to the National Times we can all now read, was given by that Cabinet. Now, not one of them is prepared to accept that he did not adequately consider the consequences of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. No one in that Cabinet is now prepared to accept that, within its terms, were provisions that related to our considering developments relating to nuclear capability in countries within Australia's neighbourhood. Why? Because this Government is trying hard to tell the people of Australia that it is the Government that it is not. Whether it is in defence today, whether it is in economic policy tomorrow, whether it is in health today, whether it is in any one of the other policy areas tomorrow, what Government members are trying to do is the thimble and pea trick. They are trying to persuade the people of Australia that they are a responsible lot of high-principled Ministers. These documents give the lie. These documents show that this Cabinet has considered in private, decided in private, and denied in public. Any government that is not prepared to stand by the principles that it should properly pursue is a government that does not deserve to succeed. This Government and these divisions within it are just the beginning of the end. What is happening is that in the conclusion of the career of the now Minister for Foreign Affairs as Leader of his Party we saw the same knife in the back approach that has forever characterised Labor in opposition and in government. Thanks to Brian Toohey, we are beginning to see the end of this beginning. It is only a step towards the end it so rightly deserves, and I believe it is one that inevitably must come for a Government that cannot be honest unto itself. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(9.12) —Mr Speaker, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) rather offensively has likened me to Judas, who at least had his price, which was 30 pieces of silver. The Leader of the National Party has established his price. He displayed that he was prepared to rob his father, down to the last brass farthing from his father's grave. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to withdraw that remark. It is obviously offensive. Mr HAYDEN —If it is argued that it was not the last brass farthing, it can only be because the right honourable member did not-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw. Mr HAYDEN —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the National Party, well known for his virtuoso appearances before the criminal courts and royal commissions of inquiry into improper conduct-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. This is a debate about the defence and the security of Australia. This man is trying to divert it because he does not know what else to say! Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —Tell us about defence. Mr HAYDEN —I will give the platform- Mr Tuckey —Tell us about security. Mr HAYDEN —I will give the platform to the Western Australian basher if that is what he wants. Mr Tuckey —That's a beauty. Tell us about defence. I am not frightened of you. Mr HAYDEN —I say, Mr Speaker. I have been threatened by the honourable member for whatever his seat is. Mr Tuckey —Come on, get on to defence. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr HAYDEN —I must say that these after- dinner speechs make extraordinarily slow progress after members of the Opposition have been charged up with bottled enthusiasm, or whatever it is, during the dinner break. However, if I could move on, the Leader of the National Party made a pertinent observation. He said in speaking to the censure motion that there were two serious elements which were deficiencies. They were quite apparent-the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). What a pathetic performance! What is the situation with which we are confronted? It is a censure motion on the basis of the latest edition of a newspaper. I suppose that the next censure motion will be on the then current issue of the Toorak Times. Is this what the Opposition has been reduced to? A scissors and paste job on the latest issue of some give-away newspaper? Is this the intellectual bankruptcy to which the Leader of the Opposition has been reduced? The Leader of the Opposition performed the role of a reader here tonight. For God's sake, let us clean up this Opposition. Let us get it functioning properly. Let us put the rightful Leader of the Opposition in his place-Brian Toohey, not the reader, Andrew Peacock, who cannot speak for himself but who has to regurgitate and go round in circles saying time after time what Brian Toohey said. If the words are going to be the words of Brian Toohey, we might as well have his voice in the House leading the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition observed that I had been trampled on politically 13 months ago. It is true, quite obviously true, and it hurt. I trust that I recovered with sufficient dignity to maintain some respect in the community. I can only express the wish that the Leader of the Opposition displays similar dignity when he is trampled on in a few months' time. Being attacked by the Leader of the Opposition is like being savaged by a dead sheep, and there they are up the back, lined up like vultures, senators from the Opposition ranks, waiting to feed off the Peacock carcass. He was so bereft of any integrity, he was so deficient in any substance, that he resorted to misrepresentation totally and completely. For instance, he said that the Government was taking Australia down the road of a nuclear capability. What a desperate lie that was because the newspaper-and we do not acknowledge whether the report is correct or not-- Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAYDEN —I will come to that in a second. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr HAYDEN —I will come to that in a second. The whole attack has been based on a newspaper report. The man is so bereft of any integrity and fundamental decency that he even totally misrepresented the report. He said that we had endorsed a move towards establishing a nuclear capability for this country. That is a lie. Any man who makes that statement on the basis of a report in black and white, claiming that that report says it when it does not say anything like it, is obviously a liar. The Leader of the Opposition has established tonight that he is so desperate, with the pressures behind him, clinging on with a popularity rating-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAYDEN —Well, for God's sake; I would not have said I was the world's best when it came to smiling and winning with the public in the opinion polls, but I never stooped or dropped so low as he has. Whenever I slipped, I recovered. He just goes back and back and back. Talk about biological regression in the political field; this man is going to disappear through some sort of fundamental organ, the way he is going. Here is the National Times. There is nothing in the National Times-the strategic basis-that said that we should get a nuclear capability. There is nothing we did that endorsed that we would get a nuclear capability because in fact the report in the National Times does not even suggest that that was what the alleged report was all about. This is what it says: Developments relating to nuclear capability in countries within Australia's neighbourhood should be monitored in order to ensure that the lead time for Australia could be matched with developments in other countries should government so decide. I repeat: 'Should government so decide'. We made no such decision. I speak for the Government, after consultation with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and my colleagues in Cabinet, and I have consistently stressed our commitment to the non-proliferation treaty, to try to establish a comprehensive test ban treaty and a range of arms control measures, and have repudiated any such suggestion. I will say this for the Leader of the Opposition, no one will ever go broke underestimating his intelligence. The fact is he misrepresented it, and he knows it. Let me make this point: The strategic basis report does not involve the endorsement of policy, as he said. Now I believe him in this sense, that when he says it does he is honestly stating a situation he believes to be correct; that is, in all those years when he was Foreign Minister he did things without realising he was doing them wrongly. At least when he came in here tonight and said that he believed that that was right when it was wrong he was being honest. But what a dope to have as Leader of the Opposition! Seven years as a Minister, and he was wrong every year and he did not know it. The facts are that the strategic basis report provides nothing more than a framework as a general guide on what might be the principles which would apply. It is subsequently an obligation-- Mr Aldred —You endorsed it. Mr HAYDEN —We will come to that in a tick too. But it is subsequently an obligation on departments, under the continuing guidance of their Ministers to develop concrete policy items. They are accepted or rejected. They are refined in the process if that is appropriate. But there is no commitment to any concrete policy, not even one, as a consequence of the strategic basis report coming before the cabinet. Yet this man-can I say it? Will honourable members dispute with me when I say, this dope?-who leads the Opposition, says otherwise. What did he do while in government for seven years? He must have been the Rip Van Winkle of the Cabinet. No wonder the previous Prime Minister could forget about him. These are the facts from Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville McNamara, a man respected by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party-that paragon of virtue and integrity, the man who has lectured us on honesty. It just shows what inflation will do to the value of a commodity these days. On 20 March, before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, easily the most prestigious and, might I say, as far as I am concerned one of the most influential and credible committees anywhere in the parliamentary system, there was a hearing. Its Chairman, the honorable member for St George (Mr Morrison), asked this question of Sir Neville McNamara: How relevant is an analysis of the strategic basis, particularly in a situation of low threat, in forming Force structure? Then the honourable member for St George added: In that context, how effective is it to formulate a force structure on the basis of a very imprecise strategic basis or threat analysis? In response, Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville McNamara said: You are quite right that the strategic basis in itself cannot be a clear pointer in definitive terms as to the sort of structure or the content of the Defence Force that we should have, but it does form the first step. Neither the former Minister for Defence in the last Government, whose eternal achievement was to reduce defence spending-he now complains that we increased it by more than 4 per cent in real terms-nor the Leader of the Opposition, who was Minister for Foreign Affairs for several years in the previous Government, knew that. Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville McNamara said: There can be various judgments stemming from the strategic basis as to where priorities and emphasis should be placed, and they do exercise some judgments as a result of that. But what he makes clear is that this is nothing more than a very generalised document. So much for all the nonsense that has been going on here tonight from this desperate Opposition led by a particularly desperate Opposition Leader. The Leader of the Opposition accused us tonight of lying, of trying to deny that the report existed. No one denies that a strategic basis report exists. Confirmation or denial is another matter, and it was never confirmed or denied by the now Opposition when in government when its strategic basis or a whole range of other sensitive and crucial documents were leaked. I will waste no time on that. The Leader of the Opposition says that we will not confess that we endorsed the document. I will tell honourable members what the Prime Minister said of the Government in this House on 2 April: . . . simply endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies. That is exactly what is appearing in the National Times, right or wrong-with no confirmation or denial from me, for sound reasons always practised by previous conservative governments. What is in the National Times does not conflict with what the Prime Minister said here on 2 April. The third great point that the Leader of the Opposition made was that I made some reference to the strategic basis being like a road directory. Let me say this: When it comes to finding his way around politically, the Leader of the Opposition will need his directions in Braille. That is how blind he is to some fundamental facts. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the dishonour, the disgrace, the outrage the damage-he uses all of these extraordinary superlative adjectives in describing these matters. Because a leak has taken place, allegedly, the Government should fall; Ministers should go to the chopper. What about the Opposition's own record? Did any of it members resign in 1976; did the Leader of the Opposition resign when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs and a confidential cable from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, giving an account of a discussion between the Canadian and Indonesian Foreign Ministers on Australia, Timor and Indonesia, was leaked to the papers? We all remember how extraordinarily embarrassing that was. He did not resign. Did he resign when the Cabinet document outlining Federal Government measures in the event of a nuclear accident was leaked in 1978? No! Nor did he resign in 1980 when despatches from the Australian High Commission in New Delhi, critical of the Indian Prime Minister, were leaked. He never resigned; he never withdrew as a matter or principle. The Leader of the National Party talking about anyone resigning as a matter of principle for improper conduct is as convincing as an alcoholic proposing to burn down breweries. We reject this nonsense from the desperate Opposition that is going nowhere except into reverse. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MACKELLAR(Warringah)(9.26) —We have heard yet again the desperate efforts of this discredited Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to answer serious charges against the Government. Every time a situation requires a serious debate , what does this little man do? In this case, for over half the time available to him to rebut these serious charges, he stooped right down into his favourite position, in the gutter. Now he goes out of the chamber because he cannot take it. He uses personal invective against members of the Opposition. There is no substance in any of the Foreign Minister's response. What did he say? He took to the Opposition for basing its censure motion on newspaper reports. Let us look at them. At this stage I remind the House and the people of Australia of what the censure motion is. It reads: That this House censures the Government for its attempt to- (1) mislead the Parliament and people on the significance of its endorsement of the strategic basis paper, and (2) deceive the Parliament and people on its deep divisions over the basis for developing Australia's defence and strategic policies. Is there any substance to those charges? We did not have any rebuttal from the Foreign Minister. Let us look at what the National Times and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said. Let us all in this House remember the basis of the Prime Minister's so-called appeal to the people of Australia. The Prime Minister of Australia has built his position on assuming a mantle of truthfulness and honesty. He surrounds himself with this so-called aura, and so far one has to acknowledge that he has convinced the Australian people-so far, I say. Let us look to see whether this mantle, this aura of forthright honesty, can be sustained in the face of the clear evidence before the House and the people of Australia tonight. In the House of Representatives on 2 April 1984, this week, the Prime Minister answered a question from one of his colleagues, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). He asked about nuclear capability and about the document entitled 'The Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy'. I quote this answer because it is important if we are looking at the claim of honesty and truthfulness which the Prime Minister carries around with him at all times. The Prime Minister said: To the extent that a document of that title was considered by Cabinet last year it was, as the Attorney-General stated in another place on Friday, simply endorsed by way of guidance for the purposes of review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies. Honourable members should listen to the next part. Listen to what this truthful, honest and straightforward man said: As is well known, it is not a policy document, but to the extent that any policy prescriptions are contained in it, these were not specifically endorsed by the Cabinet. I would like to read those words again because I think they contain the absolute gravamen of this censure motion: As is well known, it is not a policy document, but to the extent that any policy prescriptions are contained in it, these were not specifically endorsed by the Cabinet. That is what the Prime Minister said earlier this week. Let us look at the actual document endorsed by Cabinet. It was 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983 (SB83)'. Under the headline on the front page of this document are the words 'Timing and Handling of Announcement of Decision'. It then states: No specific public announcement is required but I shall present the policies outlined in SB83- I remind honourable members, yet again, that SB83 is the Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy- in my public statements on defence matters. Who will outline the policies endorsed by the Government? The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) will outline them. This Cabinet document was considered by the Cabinet. It was, I would hope, seriously considered; I would hope that it was taken seriously. I would hope that Cabinet was not too euphoric and that the Prime Minister had got back in time from his celebrations following the winning of the America's Cup. I would hope that the Cabinet, as was its proper role, considered this document very carefully. As we all know now, it endorsed it. The Prime Minister said: . . . to the extent that any policy prescriptions are contained in it, these were not specifically endorsed by Cabinet. There is a clear difference in those two statements-one, the document that we have here available to us; the other the statement by the Prime Minister. They cannot both be correct; one must be untrue. Either the Prime Minister is telling the truth and the document outlined in the National Times is not correct, or the document outlined in the National Times is correct and the Prime Minister is not telling the truth. This House and the people of Australia deserve and need to know the answer to that question. It can quite easily be outlined. If the Government is so convinced that it is right and that this alleged article in the paper cannot be sustained it should make the documents available because the only way in which the truthfulness of this Prime Minister can ever be trusted in the future is if this question can be answered. They cannot mutually stand together. We cannot have a policy document endorsed by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister saying that the policies in that document, the prescriptions contained in it, were not endorsed. Let us look again at the decision outlined in the National Times, decision No. 2165. It states: The Cabinet (a) endorsed the strategic basis of Australian defence policy 1983 as guidance for the forthcoming review of defence planning and for the development of Australian defence policies Here we have it again; the policies were contained in that document. The Minister for Defence is sitting at the table. I am very glad to see him taking part in a debate at last. The front page of his document, submission No. 392, stated: No specific public announcement is required but I shall present the policies outlined in SB83 in my public statements on defence matters. Perhaps the Minister for Defence will tell us which statement is correct. Is the Prime Minister's statement correct and the document alleged to be the Cabinet submission outlined in the National Times incorrect, or is that the correct document and is the Prime Minister telling a lie? We really do need to know the answers to these questions. The other question to which we need to know the answer is why this document and these documents were leaked in the first place. Why is there this tremendous division within the Labor Party, within the Labor Government, that would cause some member of that Party, some member of that Government, to take the action of releasing one of the most strategic documents ever to come before any Cabinet? Why would that person take the action of leaking that document to a national newspaper? I do not think the Prime Minister should have public servants spend too much time scurrying around trying to find out which department the document was leaked from. I think that would be a waste of time. I think the Prime Minister should concentrate on those departments and those ministerial offices that had access to the document in the first place. We need to realise that there are very real and understandably deep divisions within the Labor Party. But what is contained in this document is anathema to many of its members, particularly those on the socialist Left. I am wondering how many parliamentary members of the socialist Left will defend the Government on this issue. I would like to see some of the brave new world people from the socialist Left stand up in this Parliament and defend the Government by saying that they agree with what the Government is doing. We hear not a word. I would like to see the honourable member for Melbourne stand up and defend the Government. We know what the honourable member for Melbourne thinks about the situation. Let me quote from the letter that the honourable member for Melbourne sent to his colleagues. This is what he thinks about Australia's relationships and about the good relationships we have with the United States and with countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations. Let me remind honourable members again of what he says in that letter because it has something to say about the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and his actions. The honourable member for Melbourne in a letter sent to all his colleagues says this : The US . . . is practising its normal policy of isolating and undermining a country whose policies and attitudes it finds unacceptable. The ASEAN nations are supporting their own reactionary positions which keep workers in oppression, poverty and fear. That is what the honourable member for Melbourne has had to say. He is nodding his head. I am glad to see him acknowledge that. That is what he thinks about our relationships with ASEAN countries and the United States. I asked the Foreign Minister-I am sorry that he is not in the chamber to give a better answer than the one he gave the other day-whether he would dissociate himself on his own behalf and on behalf of his Government from the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Melbourne. Not a bit of it. The Foreign Minister, as is his wont, as he did yet again tonight, tried to make light of the situation. He tried to avoid it by making light of it, by suggesting that it was all a joke , and by pretending that he could not even remember the electorate that the honourable member represented. These matters that are addressed in this series of documents have now seen the light of day as a result of their being leaked. I suggest that the leaks came not from departments but from ministerial offices. We all have a fair idea which offices they came from. How could any Minister or ministerial officer leak a document such as that, thereby putting the security and the good name of Australia at risk? Mr Lloyd —How? Mr MacKELLAR —Did somebody say that Howe leaked them? I do not know whether that is right. How could they be leaked? I would not have any idea. We have been seeing more clearly day by day a disintegration within the Labor Government. Previously there were only two factions: There was the Right and the socialist Left. Now we have the emergence of a new faction-the Centre Left, led, of course , by that doyen of invective, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Now we have the Centre Left, thus introducing a new element of fragmentation in to the Labor Party. One of the leading members of the Centre Left, the Minister for Finance ( Mr Dawkins), at the National Press Club challenged the Left by saying that it should forget its opposition to the mining and export of uranium. What happens very shortly after that? Within a few days, the National Times suddenly finds available to it a document which would embarrass the Government and bring a great deal of difficulty for our relationships with other countries. I do not think that we can say that it is sheer coincidence that we have this embarrassment piled upon embarrassment by today's release of the Cabinet documents themselves-not the strategic basis paper, but the facsimiles of the Cabinet documents themselves. I say again that either those documents are incorrect and they are not a truthful fascimile of the documents which went before the Cabinet-they are either that and the Prime Minister did not lie-or they are correct-and this is the gravamen of the whole situation-and the Prime Minister lied to the people of Australia and this Parliament. If he lied to the people of Australia and this Parliament, as on the prima facie evidence he did, this censure motion, properly brought by the Opposition, should be endorsed by all of this Parliament and particularly it should be endorsed by members of the socialist Left within the Government, whose integrity, honesty and forthrightness will now be challenged if they vote against the censure motion. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(9.41) —Having heard the charges in this debate and having heard the Opposition's first three front-line lawyers-and I understand that we are about to hear the fourth-I do not really think that this motion was worth leaving a dinner with the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, which I should have thought was an important engagement for Australia. Mr Sinclair —You have got to come in here and tell the truth. Mr SCHOLES —That will disqualify me forever from joining the Liberal Party or the National Party. The House should take note of the motion: . . . mislead the Parliament and people of Australia on the significance of its endorsement of the strategic basis paper and deceive the Parliament and people on the deep divisions over the basis of developing Australia's defence and strategic policies. We have just had one lawyer do what lawyers do in order to make their living- argue over semantics and words. In this particular case, he put before the House the argument that two contrary propositions can both be accurate. Mr Carlton —Have you taken silk, Michael? Mr MacKellar —I thank the Minister very much. Mr SCHOLES —I apologise to the honourable member for Warringah. At least he is entitled to make the sorts of mistakes out of which lawyers make millions. In a number of instances in the speeches made so far, members of the Opposition purported to quote from a document. Here is another copy of the document that they can use when they come back. It is three weeks old, but it does not happen to be a Government document. It is a copy of the National Times. That is what honourable members opposite are quoting from, and they ought to know the difference. The honourable member for Warringah, in a broadbrush charge, said that we should not investigate all of those people who have had the document; that what we ought to do is look at Cabinet Ministers because they are the only people who would have a motive for leaking the document. That is what the man said. I assume that he also agrees that it was a Cabinet Minister who leaked the Department of Foreign Affairs cables from Jakarta, the Community Aid Abroad cable on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Morrison brief on his trip to the United States of America and the United Kingdom and the strategic basis document in 1976. In 1976 a strategic basis document was leaked. The coalition parties were in office and the then Minister, the honourable member for Warringah, says that no one else but a Minister would have leaked it. That is what he said in his speech. He said that one of the Ministers who was in the Government of which he was a member leaked that document, the national intelligence paper on the Soviet Union. Mr Peacock —How did it leak? Mr SCHOLES —Well, they were leaked in your time, Andrew. Mr Peacock —How did this one leak, mate? Mr SCHOLES —Your colleague says that only a Minister would have leaked them. Mr Peacock —I think he is right. Mr SCHOLES —You do? So you think a Minister in your Government leaked those other documents? Mr Peacock —No. I meant on this occasion it was leaked by your colleagues. Mr SCHOLES —Now you are equivocating. Now we know what it is. It was the public servants who leaked when he was in office. He could not trust them when he was in office but they are totally trustworthy when we are in office. His Ministers did not leak? What a lot of utter rubbish! This Government and I as Minister for Defence will treat this strategic basis document as it is. Mr Peacock —What is this? Mr SCHOLES —I thought you might be interested in this as your new policy document. Mr Donald Cameron —Is it genuine? Mr SCHOLES —The National Times is genuine; there is no doubt about that. It is written on the front. We all believe that. On 30 March the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) was attacking the contents of the documents. He said that the document contained a requirement for the development of nuclear weapons. We all know that is untrue. Nevertheless the source is one from which we would expect that type of statement. Within a week the Leader of the Opposition was standing up, endorsing all the contents of the document. Neither of them has ever seen the document. They have seen the National Times, and there is a difference. Tonight we have had the most stupid and idiotic attempt to turn a basic document, which even the National Times says was endorsed for the guidance in the development of policy- Mr Steele Hall —Are you admitting it is the right document? Mr SCHOLES —I am not admitting anything. I said that even the National Times claims that. Even the National Times states clearly that the document which it purports to have states that it was introduced by me as a document for the guidance for future planning of defence policy. Even the Oxford Dictionary does not define 'basis' as 'actual'. That is what Opposition members are saying in this House. Mr Aldred —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, is the Minister therefore claiming that the National Times document is a false document? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SCHOLES —I have not said that the National Times is a false document. I said that the Government neither confirms nor denies the accuracy of documents which purport to be security documents. Mr Carlton —What are you so upset about? Mr SCHOLES —I am not upset, actually. I am rather enjoying this because Opposition members are making fools of themselves. The question that has to be adked in this House is: On what basis did the former Government deal with strategic basis papers? Did it endorse them as the policy of the government, as it now claims they are, or did it endorse them as a basis for the future planing of defence policies? Mr Peacock —That is interesting. Mr SCHOLES —I can assure the honourable member that I read the document itself. Mr Peacock —That would have been hard. How long did you take? Mr SCHOLES —If the honourable member did not read such a document because it would have taken him too long he was rather negligent in his duties. He was the Foreign Minister and he had some obligations in that area. The Opposition has carried out what must be the most trifling and irresponsible series of attacks in order to undermine the standing and the competence of our defence forces and our relations with our neighbours over a considerable period. We do not have to look far to find out why. The Liberal and National parties are totally discredited in economic policy. They are unable to mount substantive arguments in this place or outside it to justify any of the matters which they put forward in this House. They have tried using newspaper articles, which no responsible person would do, to bring into disrepute or collision with the Government the Chief of Defence Force Staff, who did not make any statement in contradiction with me, the Government or the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr Sinclair —Deborah Snow was wrong, was she? The National Times didn't get it right? Mr SCHOLES —If the Leader of the National Party is prepared to dispute the transcript as compared with a newspaper report it is no wonder that his credibility in this Parliament is so low. I am saying that the Chief of Defence Force Staff was not wrong in what he said and he did not contradict what the Government is saying. The whole thrust of the National Times articles was based on a contention that the Government was proposing to acquire or to get the capacity to acquire nuclear arms. That is not the policy of this Government. It has never been and never will be, although it is now suggested to be the policy of the Opposition. Nuclear capacities are not in the interests of the Australian defence forces. They would weaken our strength and our defence capabilities. That is agreed by our defence advisers. Mr Lusher —Who said that? Substantiate that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I give the honourable member for Hume a last chance on interjecting. I call the Minister. Mr SCHOLES —This Government will form its defence policies on the best advice available to it, on the policy considerations on which the Australian Labor Party was elected. It will maintain an adequate and proper defence force for this country and it has commenced doing that by increasing the funds available to defence in this Budget. After a period of total neglect and absorption of costs which should have been paid for outside the defence budget and a real fall in the defence budget in the year in which the Leader of the National Party took office as a Minister-- Mr Sinclair —Rubbish, Gordon. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr SCHOLES —The right honourable gentleman is trying to hide behind the failed purchase of the Invincible. He is trying to suggest that the drop in real terms in the defence vote in 1981-82 occurred because the then Government bought the Invincible. It was because it absorbed a pay rise into the defence vote because the Treasury and the Government of the day would not meet the additional costs. Honourable members sitting opposite know that and I know that. Honourable members sitting opposite have even sought to blame this Government for actions which they took as positive policy decisions. They froze the acquisition of all but absolutely essential defence equipment in February 1982. They directed the Defence Force that it was not to enter into any contracts and it was not to meet any financial obligations that could be avoided. That is what they told the Defence Force in Feburary 1982. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) told us the other day about boots. He did not even have the decency to talk to the commanding officer about the problem. He sat on it for weeks to try to make some cheap political capital out of it. I will tell honourable members what has gone on with boots. The former Government did not order any when it was in office. The shortages that he spoke about have been evident since 1979. That is how long the shortages in some sizes have been evident. Since coming to office-- Mr White —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I invite the Minister to address the questions that have been put to him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SCHOLES —Because of the incompetence or, more importantly, the deliberate sabotage of defence stores, there are currently 24,000 boots in stock. We have ordered another 92,000 to bring the stock up to what they ought to be. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable Minister's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER —The question now is that the motion be agreed to. All those of the opinion say aye; of the contrary no; I think the ayes have it. Is a division required? The House will divide. The bells being rung- Mr SPEAKER —I remind the House that the question now is that the motion be agreed to. Mr Sinclair —The motion is that the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER —No, the motion was put and carried. Mr Sinclair —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was not, Mr Speaker. We called for a division on the motion that the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER —Order! You called for a division after the question was put that the motion be agreed to. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Drummond, P. H. Peacock, A. S.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed from 3 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Hodgman had moved by way of amendment: 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 condemns the Government for: (a) its shameful and disgraceful action in seeking to remove Her Majesty The Queen from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians, and without having first put such an important amendment to the people of Australia in a referendum, (b) its deliberate devaluation of the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship, and (c) its overall failure to consult properly with the people of Australia before bringing into this Parliament such radical republican legislative proposals'. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(10.07) —I said most of what I wanted to say the other day before debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill was adjourned, but I reiterate that this Bill is humane, reasoned and well in touch with Australian multiculturalism. This Bill is committed to ending discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex, and present nationality. The changes to the pledge of citizenship reflect proudly our national identity, integrity and autonomy. The qualifying period gives the opportunity for new settlers to take part in this country's affairs as citizens within a reasonable time. It gives the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and it takes citizenship out of the way of political interference. It removes the sad enigma of Australia being the only Commonwealth country to continue to use the concept of British subject status in preference to its own nationality. Furthermore, it is in line with the opinion of the Australian people, despite the attempts of racial intolerance to stir up debate and division to the contrary. I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the attitude expressed by members of the Opposition to this Bill. Like the 1948 Citizenship Act, they are still basically entrenched in the mentality of immediate post-war Australia. The current Act is based upon the thinking of that day. It is based on the attitude of the White Australia policy, on the feeling that migrants and their culture should have been swallowed up by anglicised Australia. That attitude was that refugees from war-torn Europe had to prove that they were good enough to be real Australians. Times have changed and attitudes have softened, but the basic attitudes of the conservative minority section of Australia remain in some quarters. Thankfully, as we read the Zubricki report on the national consultation into multiculturalism and citizenship, we find that most Australians today seem to have a more humane, open and neighbourly attitude to our newer settlers. It is worth noting that during the year ended 30 June 1982, 59,137 people renounced their former citizenship and took out Australian citizenship. As well as that, 1,779 people who were at that stage stateless now have the protection of Australian citizenship. Those 60,916 people came from 118 different nations. They brought 118 different cultures to our national mixing pot. They came from places such as Albania and Zimbabwe, Finland and Guatemala, Ghana and Vietnam. Instead of attempting to restrict the rights to Australian citizenship we should be pleased and proud that so many people from so many lands and cultures can live so peacefully together in Australia. Australia can be proud of its multiculturalism. It can be proud of the attitude and spirit which was developed predominantly during the Whitlam years. Multiculturalism and racial tolerance should be cherished and encouraged. This Bill clearly embodies Australia's growing multicultural society. The amendments contained in this Bill will at last erase the regressive attitudes embodied in the old Act. Despite the racially intolerant attitudes of a minority, whose attitudes are contrary to current attitudes, it clearly represents Australian community opinion of 1984. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.12) —I rise to speak briefly to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984 and to summarise much of what has been said from this side of the House during the past three days. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). If I may say so, I believe that he has been both fearless and consistent in his support of this Bill. Too little recognition has been given to the consistency displayed by the honourable member for Denison in regard to the whole question of Australian citizenship. I want to respond to the statements just made by the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples), who has accused members of the Parliament who sit on this side of the House of being insensitive to the wills and wishes of migrants. He said that 69,916 people chose to renounce their former citizenship and to become Australian citizens last year. I and every other member of the Federal Opposition applaud the decision made by those 69,916 people. I applaud the mixing of their cultures with ours. I am as pleased and proud as the honourable member is of the fact that they made that choice and I, too, am proud of Australia's multiculturalism. The Opposition is endeavouring to act responsibly in assessing this legislation . It is not our intention-nor has the honourable member for Denison at any time suggested that it is our intention-to oppose all of this legislation. The honourable member for Denison has simply moved an amendment which, in fact, applauds the Government's action in doing such things as ensuring that there will be no discrimination on the grounds of sex or of marital status against those who elect to become Australian citizens. There will be an opportunity for those whose age prevents them from being fluent in English not to have to meet that qualification. We applaud that sort of flexibility. What we have said is that the acceptance of this amendment will allow us to be sure that the people who choose to become Australian citizens genuinely intend to be citizens of Australia, to be responsible and loyal citizens of this nation. I have no problem at all in supporting some of what the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) said to this House in his address on this Bill. Let me read part of his speech to underscore my point. Honourable members will agree that obtaining citizenship is a necessary prerequisite for full participation of an individual in the total social and political fate of any democratic country. Citizenship entitles a person to vote and stand for public office, to be employed as a permanent public servant or judge, and to hold an Australian passport. It means eligibility to act as a juror as required, and to be eligible for military service as required. Citizenship confers both rights and duties. The Opposition has no difficulty with that at all. All we do is remind honourable members opposite of what was said by the honourable member for Melbourne; who said: Citizenship confers both rights and duties. What the legislation is doing is watering down the rights and duties to which would-be citizens of Australia pay allegiance. Effectively the legislation waters down the oath of allegiance as it exists by eliminating, if you please, recognition of the monarchy, by reducing the concept of honour to God and by reducing the time limit that we impose on those who intend to become citizens prior to their right to citizenship. All that we on this side of the House seek is an assurance of loyalty of would-be Australian citizens. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) in addressing the House said that he believed that the pledge that currently existed was much too ambiguous. He accused the Opposition of supporting a pledge which he said forced people to be uneasy about the things that they were asked to renounce. It forced people to be uneasy because they were not sure what allegiances they were losing or forgoing. I maintain that that statement is nonsense. When we ask people to owe allegiance to our nation and to our Queen, we do not ask them to renounce their culture. We do not ask them in the present existing oath to lose all of their human characteristics. We do not ask them to lose their extraordinary gesticulations or accents or their personhood. We do not expect that to disappear. All we ask is that before we amend the oath we ensure that whatever oath exists makes some demand on people for loyalty. The honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) said that a report had been handed down by the former Minister, Mr Hodges, and because that report had been handed down and made certain specific recommendations we ought to endorse them. What is this-government by report? I would have thought the role of the Parliament was to look at the options in a report and then make responsible decisions. My plea to the Parliament tonight is simply for responsible decisions in the area of the oath of citizenship that we offer. The honourable member for Burke dared to suggest that the Parliament had some sort of mandate, if you please, to do what it likes with the oath of citizenship. The honourable member for Burke dared to suggest that we were challenging the basic right to citizenship of people who would be citizens. I think that too was nonsense. The honourable member for Burke suggested that the Government came into this House with a mandate. He suggested that the Government had a right to amend the oath of citizenship as it pleases, but he conveniently lost sight of the fact that even if the proposal before the House became law, the oath that is sworn by members of parliament will still be an oath that pays allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. So the honourable member for Burke is conveniently sugesting that in Australia we will have two classes of people: Those who come into this House and swear one oath of allegiance and those who choose to become citizens and swear another. Why is that? It is because the only way we can change the oath that exists-the oath to which members of parliament pledge themselves-is by referendum. The honourable member for Burke knows, as does the Government, that such a referendum would be defeated. So rather than use the open door, the open technique of referendum, the Government chooses the back-door technique of claiming a mandate and is now bringing in two oaths of allegiance. The honourable member for Burke has suggested that we are challenging the basic right of Australian immigrants to become citizens of Australia. The present situation does not deny anyone who genuinely wants to become a citizen the right to do so, and the Opposition does not seek to deny anyone, by its support of this amendment, that basic right. All we seek is loyalty; all we seek to establish is that those who would become citizens of Australia are prepared to be governed by this Parliament, to be subject to the judicial requirements and laws of this land, and that they be passionately pro-Australian. Of course we also seek that people who would become citizens of this country become subject to Queen Elizabeth, our Queen. I remind the House that no other Western democracy has reduced the time scale for citizenship to three years, let alone two years. We will become the Western democracy with the lowest qualifying time for citizenship. Is that the act of a responsible government? I doubt it. I was particularly distressed to hear the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) saying that because Her Majesty the Queen does not live in Australia, it is no longer appropriate for Australians to pledge allegiance to her. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) clearly and irrevocably said that the Pope also lives outside Australia but those who are of the Roman Catholic faith find no problem in pledging their allegiance. The other point I make is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does not choose to live in South Australia in order to claim the allegiance of South Australians. I have never heard so shallow an argument as the suggestion that in order to owe any allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, Her Majesty should live in Australia. The honourable member for Tangney went on to suggest that he meant no criticism of Her Majesty by saying that she did not live in Australia. I feel that that is the cheapest form of criticism that one could have levelled at her. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) made the very real point that more demands are made on people wishing to become citizens of the United States of America than we currently make on citizens in Australia. All too many people opposite have been anxious to say that we ought to adopt something more of the United States of America style of government. I remind them that if there is one thing in our nation that the people of the United States of America envy, it is the fact that we have an apolitical head of State, the fact that we have a system of parliament and judiciary that is founded on a person who can be independent. I am also forced to my feet to protest at the undemocratic decision to make God optional. I remind honourable members opposite that 81 per cent of Australians believe in God in some form acceptable to them. It is not the concern of this Parliament, nor is it a part of this debate, to decide what form God takes. All that we can do in giving Australians an opportunity to invoke the name of Almighty God is to allow them to acknowledge that there are mysteries that human beings cannot plumb; allow them to acknowledge that there is a level of human frailty. It is that measure of humility that is all too foreign to this place. Mr Holding —Yes, like your speech. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Wakefield is making a very sincere and genuine speech. I ask you to control the rabble that is trying to disrupt him. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order but I do ask honourable members to restrain themselves. Mr ANDREW —I thank the honourable member for Denison for his support. The other point I wish to make is that this acknowledgment that there is some being superior to ourselves, no matter what form we believe it takes, is essential to real, unselfish citizenship. Mr Hollis —A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is nothing in the legislation about taking God out of the oath of allegiance. The 'God' is still there for those who want it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr ANDREW —I remind the honourable member for Macarthur that my understanding of the alternative oath and pledge is that we have now decided not to give people the opportunity, in the first instance, to invoke the name of Almighty God when they sign a pledge but to make that optional. I am suggesting that the majority of Australians would not use that as an option. The Opposition's concern is that this recognition, this essential humility, is now optional rather than the initial form of pledge that is taken. Let us acknowledge as a House that we have been the inheritors of a successful post-war migration program. As the honourable member for Wakefield I have in my electorate a vast number of people who have been successful post-war migrants. Indeed the fruit growing community in Wakefield would not exist as a viable community without them. It has been suggested that the migrants in Australia are confused by the present oath. I doubt that, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) doubts it and so does the honourable member for Denison. The reality is that we have 15 million homogenous people living in Australia and the majority of those migrants have pledged an oath of loyalty as it currently exists to Australia. We ought to ask ourselves what the present existing oath has prevented migrants or those who would be citizens from doing. What has our present existing Constitution, wisely framed as it is, prevented us from doing? This evening all I have endeavoured to do in this place is defend the right of people to first be assessed as responsible citizens before citizenship is made readily available to them. I have sought to defend the right of people to have as a first option, if they wish, the invoking of the name of Almighty God in the pledging of an oath. I have sought to defend the right of Australians, who are governed under a monarchy, whose judicial system has the pillar of monarchy in it, to recognise the monarchy when they pledge allegiance to this nation. I have sought to defend the right of every new Australian to be a part of a proud and unique nation. There are things in this legislation which are necessary. Why soil it with divisive, weakening proposals? I can only hope that in another place wiser counsels will prevail. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.28) —Tonight we are debating the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, a Bill which I wholeheartedly support. It is unfortunate that in the last few minutes and in the speech made by the Opposition spokesman on immigration, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), we have heard the last gasps of the defenders of the British empire. I would have thought that we would not have heard in this Parliament in the 1980s honourable members talking about loyalty and how we have to test the loyalty of people before they can become Australian citizens. That was the concept that we debated in the Parliament at the turn of the century. It was the concept that was flung against my grandparents who were emigrants from Ireland. The defenders of the British empire in those days were the people who said: 'Of course you would not want to let the terrible Irish become Australian citizens'. What we find in this Parliament now, fortunately, is that the Irish have indeed inherited the earth. The majority of the members of the Government can claim some sort of Irish background. However, the type of argument that was put in this Parliament tonight by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) was an echo of the arguments that were put at the turn of the century about how we have to test the loyalty of immigrants and how we have to see that they are not adherents of some foreign country. The honourable member for Wakefield, for the first time that I have heard in this Parliament, raised the sectarian issue. Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Holding-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.30) —In the five years that I have been a member of this Parliament and the 20 years or so that I have been involved in politics in one way or another in this country I have not heard the sectarian issue raised. I thought it was dead. I thought it died when people tried to kick the Irish out of politics in Australia. But tonight the honourable member for Wakefield suggested somehow that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) was involved in a sort of popish plot by bringing this legislation into the House. I have always had my suspicions about the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, but I never thought he was involved in a popish plot. But tonight the honourable member for Wakefield suggested something like that. Mr Andrew —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I made no such allegations, as the honourable member is well aware. All I did was make a comparison between what had been said by honourable members opposite- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. Mr LEO McLEAY —The honourable member can try to slide off it as long as he likes , but tonight in this Parliament the Opposition raised a sectarian issue. I think that is somewhat disgraceful. I and my colleagues on this side of the House are willing to welcome all and any who want to make Australian their home, and we are willing to facilitate those people to take up Australian citizenship. I find it abhorrent that members of the Opposition, those people who represent the last gasp of the defenders of the British empire, would try to prevent those people who were not from British stock from taking out citizenship of this country. I will advert in a few moments to some of the speeches made by some Opposition spokesmen on this matter. But I consider it somewhat offensive that tonight in the Parliament a member of the Opposition attacked people of the Catholic faith. I think that is beyond pardon. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. That is a deliberate misrepresentation, and I am a Catholic. It is a lie. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr LEO McLEAY —The truth hurts when it is put to them. I thought that the honourable member for Dension and the honourable members for Hume (Mr Lusher) would be taking the honourable member for Wakefield to task for the attack not only on members of this side of the Parliament but also on them. Mr Hollis —Why do they hate Catholics? Mr LEO McLEAY —Goodness knows why they hate the Catholics. The serious point I want to raise tonight is the Opposition's allegation that we are trying to make God optional. I know that the honourable member for Wakefield has not been a member of this House for very long and he may not know that, in talking to a Bill, one should look not only at the Bill but also at the Schedules of the Bill . For the edification of the honourable member for Wakefield I will read the first Schedule of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. The second form of pledge in that Schedule reads: I . . . renounce any current citizenship and all allegiances to any State other that Australia. I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfill my duties as an Australian citizen. I do not think that makes God optional. That makes God very positive. Mr Hodgman —It is the second option. Mr LEO McLEAY —The honourable member says that that is the second option, because under the oaths Act an affirmation is provided for those people who do not subscribe to the Christian faith. If the Opposition wants me to name the members of the Opposition who took the affirmation instead of the oath of allegiance when being sworn in, we can recount the number of non-Christians in the Opposition. I think that is rather irrelevant, but anyone who wishes to swear the oath of allegiance can do so under the provision of the Schedule to this Bill. So to say that the Government has made God optional is a foul lie, a lie that has been reported by- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw those words. Mr LEO McLEAY —I have not imputed anything against anyone, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the words, please. Mr LEO McLEAY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I would not wish to take issue with you on the Standing Orders. I think it is not possible-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Perhaps the honourable member could rephrase his statement . Mr LEO McLEAY —I state quite blatantly that under the Standing Orders I have the right to say that it is a foul lie for the Opposition collectively to make an allegation. That is a proper statement under the Standing Orders. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Grayndler that there have been contrary rulings on this issue but I think it would be wiser if the honourable member were to fall in with the Chair's request. Mr LEO McLEAY —Madam Deputy Speaker, in deference to you I will say that the Opposition is misrepresenting the position of the Government in the extreme by suggesting that the Government has made God optional, because the Schedule to this Bill specifically allows the making of an oath of allegiance. For the Opposition to suggest anything else is absolutely untrue. Let me turn to the amendment moved by the Opposition. Mr Hodgman —I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the honourable member going to withdraw or not? You asked him to withdraw and he is now-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I asked the honourable member to rephrase his statement. He has done that. Mr LEO McLEAY —The truth always hurts these people when it is nailed on to them. I shall now deal with some of the specific and more difficult parts of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison, an amendment that I consider to be scurrilous in the extreme. The honourable member for Denison suggests that by this legislation the Government is removing reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Denison is not one of the better lawyers in this country. He obviously has not practised law for quite some time. However, I always was of the opinion that the honourable member for Denison had the faculty of being able to read. Quite frequently we hear him tell the Parliament what the Constitution is. I have no doubt that he has never read the Constitution. The amendment that he has moved to the motion for the second reading of this Bill proves that he has never read it. I find it rather dangerous that a person who is willing to quote the Constitution all the time has not bothered to read the first part of it. I refer the House to section 1 of Part I of Chapter I of the Australian Constitution. The first operative paragraph of our Constitution reads: The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called the 'Parliament,' or 'The Parliament of the Commonwealth.' The Parliament is made up of three elements-the Queen, the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, the scurrilous amendment proposed by the Opposition spokesman on these matters suggests that we have left out the Queen. What we are asking people to do is quite sensibly and sanely take an oath for Australia. We are asking them, as is set out in Schedule 1 of the Bill, to swear an oath faithfully to uphold the Constitution of Australia. Section 1 of Part I of Chapter I of the Constitution mentions the Queen, the House of Representatives and the Senate. No doubt the honourable member for Denison has difficulties with logic and with reading. Obviously he has difficulties with the law. Anyone who has any sense or understanding of plain English-the honourable member for Denison is the last defender in this Parliament of the British Empire -would see that the Queen is mentioned there. We are asking people to recognise that. If anything has brought the Queen into disrepute in this country, it is the blatant politicisation of the monarchy in Britain by the Conservative Thatcher Government of that country, which sends the Queen of Britain traipsing around the world to make blatantly political speeches on its behalf. No doubt people in this country get rather concerned about making the distinction in relation to whether that is the Queen of Australia speaking, the Queen of Great Britain or the Queen of Northern Ireland. They have something of a problem about that. No doubt the honourable member for Dension would remember that when he was taught by the good nuns as a boy he was taught about the Blessed Trinity, which was something that we were told would be very difficult to understand. Many of our new immigrants to this country have great difficulty in understanding the concept that the lady who stood up and spoke in Jordan last week was not talking on our behalf. We have made the oath simpler. We have said: 'You will swear a straight oath to the Constitution of Australia; you will call upon God to recognise you swearing that oath; and that will satisfy the proposals under this legislation'. That makes it a lot simpler and much more understandable. In my view and, I am sure, in the view of my colleagues, it is a lot more Australian for us to do that. A number of other proposals are put forward by the honourable member for Denison and by the honourable member for Wakefield. They said that they thought we were devaluing Australian citizenship by reducing the qualifying time from three years to two years. Of course, they would prefer to make it law that a person had to be here for 100 years, and probably dead, before he could become a citizen. If they had their way, they would like only these people who were second or third generation Australian-born to have the right to be citizens. Mr Simmons —That is racist. Mr LEO McLEAY —That is quite true. But what we wish to do is to make it easier for all those who have chosen to make Australia their home to become citizens. The honourable member for Dension said that it was something terrible that we were repealing a section of the Act that said that all those people who were British subjects in 1949 in this country would no longer be able to say: ' Tomorrow I want to become a citizen'. They have had only 35 years in which to make up their minds whether they want to be citizens. There are 1.2 million people in this country who are able to become citizens but who have not chosen to become citizens. I find it offensive that 1.2 million people living in Australia have chosen not to become citizens but wish to have all the rights and privileges that go with living here. But the honourable member for Dension wants to say that anyone who can claim any sort of British stock can have the right of citizenship. Unfortunately, we are the last country in the world that says that. Many years ago, even the Old Dart decided that that was not on. The honourable member for Dension travels around the world quite frequently. I would bet my life that the last time he was in London, he got in the queue at the Customs barrier under a notice that said 'Aliens'. If one is an Australian citizen in Britain, one does not get in the queue for British subjects; one gets in the queue for aliens. Even Britain, the old home country the honourable member for Dension wants to hark back to, does not now accept people from the Antipodes back into its bosom. I think it is a little unfair and offensive to extend a privilege that we have extended for 35 years and allow those people to make up their minds, but to say to those who have chosen to come here and make this country their home that they should wait for longer than two years to become citizens. It smacks of all sorts of paternalism. That is the last sort of thing we should be seeing in this country in the 1980s and as we go into the latter part of this century. The honourable member for Denison also says in his amendment that we never consulted anyone about these changes, that we never talked to anyone. Once again , the honourable member for Denison obviously does not listen in his own party room. We have found tonight, by looking at his amendment, that he cannot read and he does not understand the law. But he was obviously asleep in his party room when his colleague the previous member for Petrie canvassed the issue. Unfortunately he departed the Parliament following the last election and does not represent that seat in this House now. He was a very pleasant man but his politics were a bit suspect. We now have, politically speaking, a much better member for Petrie in this House. But Minister Hodges in 1982 introduced proposals to change the Citizenship Act. I have no doubt that he canvassed that in the Liberal-National Party party room. The honourable member for Denison was not listening and he obviously did not understand what his predecessor was doing. There has been widespread debate regarding these amendments to the Act. They were introduced by the Government last year and have lain on the table for quite some time so that everyone knows what we are doing. The amendments we are making to this Act have been applauded by people right across this country. The only people who do not like it are the dying monarchists who do not represent anything in this country except the sordid past. In the short time left I would like to mention a couple of the positive points of the amendments to this Act. In particular, I congratulate the Minister for his amendments to the language requirement in this Act. For many years, in my electorate of Grayndler, which has one of the largest portions of new migrants in Australia, I have been quite concerned at the position in which migrant women have been placed in Australia vis-a-vis the immigration laws. The language proposals of the previous Immigration Act discriminated against older migrants and migrant women. There have been a number of studies by the Institute of Family Studies which have highlighted the plight of migrant women in Australia and their difficulties in receiving naturalisation and becoming citizens, along with members of their families. Mr Hodgman —You have been asleep. We support that amendment. Mr LEO McLEAY —The Government had instituted these amendments. The honourable member for Denison says the Opposition supports them. It is a bit late! Members of the Opposition should have done something when they were in government. They are very supportive now of many things that they knew about at the time but had no intention of doing anything about. The present Government is dragging these people out of the 1950s into the 1980s. Migrant women are very strongly discriminated against under the Act. Those migrant women who spend their lives at home, maintaining their children, do not have many opportunities to learn English. Those who are forced to adopt a dual role of both mother and income earner are normally employed in occupations where there is little English spoken . They do not have the time after work to go to English classes. The Minister has quite rightly reduced the language requirement. I hope, and I know, that the Minister has in mind extending the English language classes that are taught to new citizens-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr McGauran) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.49) —The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is in the process of abandoning its East Burwood Victorian headquarters site after years of planning and considerable expenditure when 80 per cent of the Melbourne staff have moved to that part of Melbourne to be close to this facility. It will be at an addditional cost of about $2m per year. The basis of my concern is the proposal that the ABC has or is about to place before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works a proposal not to proceed with stage 2 of the East Burwood site but instead to look for a central city location which will, amongst other things, destroy 10 years of development and planning at east Burwood to centralise the hereto dispersed location of the ABC around Melbourne. It will delay the already overdue provision of better facilitities by at least another several years; isolate Radio Australia at East Burwood, contrary to the expectation of those personnel that they would be joined by the other ABC staff; destroy the finalised plans for the site prepared by the Department of Housing and Construction task force; destroy the whole concept which began 10 years ago with the purchase of the East Burwood site, and delay the provision of new facilitities for ABC staff and with it the opportunity to install new equipment, have better working conditions, et cetera. The new proposal is contrary to the instruction of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in February this year, when he stated that government departments and authorities had been required to save money by, amongst other things, moving their offices from central city locations to the suburbs because it was not only cheaper but also closer to the homes of the employees. This brings me back to the original criticisms of this new ABC proposal. First of all, when a site is found in central Melbourne, it will cost about $2m a year more, as well as the waste involved in the forward planning, the wasted value of East Burwood, and so on. Even more important is the effect it will have on ABC staff in Melbourne, where for 10 years they were told to move to the suburbs around East Burwood because that is where they would all be housed. Eighty per cent of ABC staff responded by moving to or concentrating in that area. Now all of this is to be contradicted. All the effort, the cost of moving, the dislocation of families involved, et cetera, is to be wasted. One could ask: 'How could we have an efficient ABC headquarters in the suburb of East Burwood?' The point is that there would still be facilities in the central city and that, together with new technology, would make this the most efficient and appropriate place. I call on the Public Works Committee to reject this proposal and I call on the ABC to think again about a proposal which is contrary to planning, cost benefit, ministerial instruction and the welfare of a large number of employees. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.52) —Tonight I want to talk about matters that some people would call treason. I think it is beholden on members of parliament when presenting petitions in this House to have regard to what they present. For my own part, while I would willingly table petitions with which I do not personnally agree, I would not agree to table any petition that was subversive, divisive in the community, or had all the hallmarks of a confidence trick. Mr Doug Anthony, the then Deputy Prime Minister of this country, on 10 October 1978 presented a petition in this House calling for the establishment of the sovereign state of Aeterna Lucina. The petition will be found on page 1592 of the Hansard for that date. It called upon the Commonwealth Government to recognise the sovereign powers of this entity, bestow upon it the same privileges that the Vatican State enjoys in Europe, and convert its de facto status, which he said existed then, to formal recognition. That, I believe, was a terribly irresponsible act. It is laughable to hear these people, who would give away parts of Australia, lamenting the reality of Christmas or Cocos Islands in the event of an attack on this country. It just shows the pure hypocrisy of their motives. I ask honourable members to contemplate the irresponsibility of this act. Some people would call it unpatriotic, some would call it treasonable, I would call it foolish. It must be said that the then Deputy Prime Minister certainly looked the part. This Gilbertian character, who apparently believed in praising every century but this and every country but his own, was quite prepared to put forward the claims of the German gentleman, Dr Neuman, the self-styled Lord of the Knights, Dreamer of Dreams, and several other titles which he apparently bestowed upon himself. In brief, this was the situation. This gentleman acquired 3,000 acres around Cooma in the mountains for $24 an acre or thereabouts. He then set out to subdivide it and sell it off in building lots at $3,000 per quarter acre block. All sorts of stringent regulations were bestowed on them. I have the full documentation here. There is a declaration of independence, his constitution and even a building code, if you please. This gentleman was quite successful in selling some of these blocks overseas at these exorbitant prices. Of course, when he sold them he bestowed them in the title of the sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina. I think literally translated that means 'Heavenly Light'. He had a torrens land title from the State of New South Wales. Many people were duped into going there. He had letters from various Liberal members and, in fact, Ministers at the time . The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who was, at that time, a Minister, replied to him. I have a copy of a letter here. It is in very friendly terms. The letter itself does not have much significance, but when we see what he is replying to, and bearing in mind that the petition had already been tabled , the honourable member for Warringah was obviously involving himself in the dispossession of 3,000 acres of this country. He was lending himself to what was obviously a fraudulent confidence trick. I have spoken to the honourable member for Warringah about this in passing. He still applauds the actions of this gentleman. What has happened is that people in Europe were told that they should come to Australia and that Dr Neuman had special friends in the then Government who would provide him with preferential treatment in terms of immigration. These people were to come to Australia on visitors' visas and then walk across the border into his sovereign State where he would bestow upon them citizenship of this new fair land, which was, of course, only a figment of his imagination. It is rather sad that this is probably the only country in the world where we would willingly give away pieces of our land. This gentleman, in his evidence for its existence, says that when the same trick was tried in Germany, the might of the German Army descended on him in three days. The Government did not bother with the police force in Germany; it sent the Army. But here we have these paragons of virtue, these hypocrites of the first order, prepared not only to table in this Parliament petitions pleading that we give away parts of this country but also to assist actively in the dispossession of this land. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(10.57) —I would like to record my respects to the family of Frank Doyle, the former member for Lilley, who died in Brisbane on 13 March at the age of 62 and to pay tribute to Frank. Frank was the Federal member for Lilley between 1972 and 1974. He won the seat from the former Federal housing Minister, Mr Kevin Cairns, by 35 votes which was, at the time, considered one of the closest Federal poll results in history. Mr Cairns was the only Queensland government member to lose his seat in that Labor victory. Prior to his election to parliament, Frank was State Secretary to the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen for more than 14 years and was also made a life member of the union. He was appointed as Queensland's first Director of the Trade Union Training Authority in 1974, a job he held until his death. Throughout a long and outstanding career he contributed greatly to the Labor movement and promoted the trade union training schemes throughout Queensland. He held many executive positions within the Australian Labor Party, including membership of the Queensland Central Executive. Frank was valued by me as a family man whose sympathies lay with the underdog. His sudden death has saddened all those people who are associated with the Labor movement who knew Frank as a loyal and generous man. He is survived by his wife Eileen, eight children and 16 grandchildren. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(11.00) —The point I was making before I was interrupted is that people have been inveigled into coming to this country. Whilst it may seem amazing to people in Australia that people in Europe could be seduced into coming to Australia with this sort of tale, they should realise that in Europe one is faced with the Liechtensteins and Monte Carlos and- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Duffy —Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may be extended until 11.10 p.m. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.01) —I welcome the contribution of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) tonight on the East Burwood Stage 2 development by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I assure the honourable member for Murray that this matter causes honourable members on this side of the House considerable concern also. Many representations have been made to me by members of the Government. In fact this matter has been discussed by the communications committee of the Caucus. As was indicated by the honourable member for Murrary, the East Burwood project was commenced as a means of rationalising accommodation for the ABC in Melbourne . Stage 1 was completed in 1982. Previous government approvals covered Stage 1 of the project. Following recommendations of the Board of the former Australian Broadcasting Commission in November 1983, I agreed to seek approval for Stage 2 of the project. In fact, on 18 November 1983 I wrote to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) seeking his formal approval to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The Board of the new Corporation has now advised me that it wishes to defer Stage 2 while it re- evaluates the project, but no final decision has yet been made. On 10 February, the Assistant Managing Director of the ABC wrote to the Department of Communications advising that the ABC had decided to seek deferment of consideration of the project by the Public Works Committee. As indicated by the honourable member for Murray, the Board had called for options for the East Burwood development, as well as options involving sites in the South Melbourne area. This decision apparently reflected some concern of the Board about providing prompt news and current affairs coverage from a location relatively remote from the Melbourne central business district. It should be emphasised that the Board's decision comes very late in the day. Stage 1 of the development at East Burwood is complete and there is a government decision to proceed with the development of Stage 2. On 2 March I sought from the ABC detailed reasons for the deferral. I must say that I found the response of the ABC unsatisfactory. It is necessary to pursue the matter further with the ABC. I can assure the House that the appropriate papers on this matter are in the course of preparation. House adjourned at 11.04 p.m. until Tuesday, 1 May 1984, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following notices were given: Mr Shipton to move- That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Minister for Aviation stated in the Parliament on 28 March 1984 that using the new Air Pass fare a passenger could fly from Perth to Melbourne and on to Launceston, and catch a boat back to Melbourne and fly home via Adelaide, and (b) the existing rules applicable to the Air Pass fare state that the air sectors travelled must be consecutive and that the journey cannot be interrupted by a surface sector, and (2) accordingly calls on the Minister to change the fares to accord with the conditions he described in the House. Mr Spender to move- That the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, (No. 59 of 1983), made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Mr Spender to move- That the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983, No. 332, made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. Mr Spender to move- That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983, No. 331, made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 5 April 1984: Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 55 International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1984, No. 52 Lands Acquisition Act-Land acquired for- Broadcasting station services, Shoalhaven, NSW Telecommunications services, Rylstone, NSW Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 54 Therapeutic Goods Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 53 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 734) Dr Klugman asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 10 November 1983: Has his attention been drawn to an advertisement on page 38 of the National Times of 7-13 November 1982 soliciting advertising and claiming a readership of 518,000; if so, will he review his answer to question No. 570 (2) (Hansard, 1 November 1983, page 2160) that he is not aware of any National Times claim for readership of 518,000 at 7-13 November 1982. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have noted that on page 38 of the National Times of 7-13 November 1982 there was a claim for readership of 518,000. This was stated to be based on the ' McNair Anderson Readership Survey No. 1, 1982'. As the former Special Minister of State explained in his answer to Question No. 570 on 1 November 1983 this claim was irrelevant to the placement of Commonwealth advertising in the National Times. Newspaper readership data used as a reference by the Australian Government Advertising Service is that contained in the survey of readership of daily and Sunday papers prepared and published by the Roy Morgan Research Centre. (Question No. 956) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) Is it a fact that Mr Adrian Dolman, a Victorian Art Collector is acting as an agent for the sale of a large collection of (a) Aboriginal art works with an estimated value of $300,000 and (b) Aboriginal artefacts with an estimated value of $100,000 in the United States of America. (2) Who are the owners of these two collections and can he assure the Parliament that they do not contain any sacred objects that should be retained in this country for the Aboriginal community. (3) Does the sale of the collections contravene (a) the wishes of the Aboriginal community to keep major collections of Aboriginal arts and crafts in this country and (b) the intentions of the Government regarding the sale of Aboriginal arts and artefacts. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) On the information available to me, I am unable to say whether Mr Adrian Dolman is acting as an agent for the sale of the collections of Aboriginal artworks and artefacts in the United States of America referred to by the honourable member, who the owners of the collections are, or details of the content of the collections. Government policy is that sacred objects be returned to their traditional owners. (3) (a) If the honourable member can provide me with further details about the collections, I will be able to advise him on this matter. (b) Under the Second Schedule of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations, the export of archaeological and anthropological material derived from or relating to Australian Aboriginals is prohibited unless the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce is first obtained. (Question No. 1058) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 1 March 1984: Is Australian slate being used at any stage during the construction of the New Parliament House; if so, what are the details. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is not currently proposed to use Australian slate in the construction of the New Parliament House. It was originally proposed to use Australian slate as flooring in the main public galleries and pedestrian links in the building. However, tests carried out on several Australian slate samples indicated they were unsuitable for this type of usage. The tests indicated the slate had a low resistance to abrasion making it unsuitable for a building of this kind which has a long projected life and heavy use of floor areas. It is proposed to use Australian granite in these areas instead of slate because it has more durable qualities. (Question No. 1061) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question, in respect of my Department and the statutory authorities reporting to me in my capacity as Minister for Trade, is as follows: Nil. My Department will, however, be participating in this innovative program for providing worthwhile and productive employment for the long term unemployed. (Question No. 1063) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department, and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Nil. (Question No. 1149) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) How many additional staff were engaged in the Minister's Department, in both its national and branch offices in the Australian Capital Territory, to administer the Government's proposed assets test. (2) In what specific ways will staff in the ACT now be usefully utilised until the Government's intentions in relation to the assets test are clarified. (3) If staff are to be transferred to other departments, to which departments will they go, and what will be the specific duties undertaken. (4) If staff are to be absorbed within the Department of Social Security by postponing recruitment, what duties will the staff be asked to undertake, in the meantime, to keep them usefully occupied. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As at 7 March the Department had 65 staff working on the income and assets test in the ACT. These staff were deployed as follows: Central Office Assets Test Secretariat 4 Benefits (policy & legislation) 7 Systems & Operations development 19 Training 16 Secretariat and Information 1 Accommodation and Services 1 48 ACT Regional Administration Co-ordinator 1 Training 1 New recruits 15 17 Grand Total 65 (2) Until the Government's intentions in relation to the income and assets test are clarified the above staff will be employed as follows: Central Office Assets Test Secretariat: Two to remain on assets test matters, one transferred to the ACT Regional Administration to undertake a special project related to reconciliation of the ACT advance account, one to work on systems and operations development matters. Benefits: Staff will continue on current duties until 6 April 1984 and then be redeployed to work on normal benefits/policy administration matters. Systems and Operations development: Staff will continue systems and operations design on basis of existing legislation but concentrating on elements that would be common to any assets test. The team is also working on amendments to current systems, identified as essential, prior to the administration of an income and assets test. Training: Four staff have been redeployed to the ACT Regional Administration to clear up workload backlogs, six are involved in the development of and advanced pensions examiner course, two have been redeployed to help clear backlogs of ministerial correspondence, one will continue to work on assets test training material, one has been transferred to management training, one to assist with STRATPLAN implementation, one position is no longer filled. Secretariat and Information: This officer has been assigned to a project dealing with a review of procedures concerned with client identification (proof of identity). Accommodation and Services: Accommodation work will continue. ACT Regional Administration The assets test co-ordinator has been redeployed to clear a backlog of staffing matters, particularly staff selections. The training officer is now engaged on general training matters within the Administration. The 15 new recruits have been absorbed into normal regional office work. (3) No staff will be transferred to other departments. (4) Because of high staff turnover rates and the flexibility allowed under average staffing arrangements the 15 new recruits taken on in the ACT Regional Administration have already been transferred to normal departmental programs to which the ACT Regional Administration would otherwise have needed to recruit. They are no longer regarded as assets test staff. (Question No. 1197) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 27 March 1984: (1) What is the Government's program for effecting an Act of self-determination for the non-self-governing Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. (2) What questions will be put to the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in respect of their self-determination. (3) If one of the proposed questions includes an offer of integration with Australia, will alternative proposals to that arrangement be advanced, or will no one particular proposal be submitted. (4) Is there any substance to the suggestion that integration with the Northern Territory may be proposed. (5) Have discussions taken place with the Northern Territory Government on this proposal. (6) What greater association would the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have with the Northern Territory rather than, say, Western Australia. (7) Do all persons born on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have Australian citizenship. (8) How many people born on Cocos (Keeling) Islands have settled in Australia, and in which States or Territories. (9) Will Mr John Clunies-Ross and his family be eligible to vote in any questions of self-determination. (10) Will an Act of self-determination be effected before or after legal proceedings for the acquisition of the home and curtilage of the Clunies-Ross family is completed. (11) Will Mr Clunies-Ross be asked to leave the Cocos (Keeling) Islands before or after the Act of Self-Determination is affected. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An Act of self determination will occur on 6 April. (2) The people will be asked to choose between integration with Australia, free association with Australia and independence. (3) See answer to question 2. (4) No. In the event of a decision in favour of integration with Australia, the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands will not be integrated with the Northern Territory. Both Territories will retain their separate identities. However the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be included in the Northern Territory Federal electorate. (5) Yes. (6) Inclusion of the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in a Western Australian electorate would require an amendment to the Constitution involving a referendum. Attachment to the Northern Territory electorate which does not involve change to the Constitution, is the preferred solution. (7) All persons born in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands on or after the transfer of the Islands to Australia on 23 November 1955 are Australian Citizens. Under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act, as amended, persons who were ordinarily resident in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands immediately before 23 November 1955, who now are ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory and who wish to take up Australian citizenship may do so by making a declaration to that effect. Almost all Cocos Malays in the Territory are now Australian Citizens. (8) The 1981 Australian census shows 494 people whose place of birth is the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. These are known to be resident in Western Australia with some possible exceptions. The 1981 Christmas Islands census shows 32 people in the Ethnic Group: Cocos Islander; Cocos Malay. (9) Mr Clunies-Ross and his wife are eligible to vote. The question of whether his son, John, and his daughter-in-law are eligible to vote is a matter that will be determined by a committee of appeal set up under the Referendum (Self- Determination) Ordinance of the Territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. (10) The Act of Self-Determination will occur before legal proceedings for the acquisition of the Clunies-Ross property on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are completed. (11) Mr Clunies-Ross will not be asked to leave the Territory before the Act of Self-Determination is effected. The remainder of the question is hypothetical.