Thursday, 31 May 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the Chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Pornographic Publications To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law: The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled; should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Blunt,Mr Burr,Mr Cadman,Mr Groom,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Howard,Mr McVeigh and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: 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; 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 moral development, of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled should amend the Bill so as the prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all 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 Blunt,Mr Cadman,Mr Cowan,Mr Fife,Mr Kerin,Mr Punch and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20% is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen,Mrs Child,Mr Howard,Mr Scott,Mr Shipton,Dr Theophanous and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Groom,Mr Hawker,Mr Lusher,Mr McGauran and Mr Ruddock. 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 economic 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 Drummond,Mr Porter,Mr Rocher and Mr Scott. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights overs seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard,Ms McHugh,Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott. 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 Mrs Child and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That, having received information from the Attorney-General's Department concerning the New Commonwealth Censorship Procedures for Publication, we are abhorred by the intent of the Government to change the already liberal Censorship Laws into such Laws as will open the doors to nearly complete licence where publications are concerned. We most strongly feel that in this way the Government would be intentionally instrumental in perverting the thoughts and actions of young and older Australians. We therefore request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A .C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- that the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, recognises the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if changes is contemplated that the question by put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- That ABC radio transmission from 4QA Mackay is antiquated and operates on transmitters installed in 1947-48 to service a region in which the area and population has doubled in the intervening 36 years, The signal from 4QA is below strength so that station 4QN at Townsville has a far better signal strength into the Mackay hinterland than 4QA, a distance of only 70 km from Mackay and over 300 km from Townsville, The 4QN news programmes are of no interest in the Mackay region and in emergency situations such as cyclones, the 4QA frequency has limited penetration within the region, That while FM programmes are available in Rockhampton and Townsville, Mackay, with a regional population of 100,000 people, has been by-passed when towns of smaller size have the advantages of FM radio. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government and the Department of Communications will move urgently to rectify both these anomalies. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 adherent 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen', And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - We, the undersigned students of Clairvaux College, McKillop College and the Mt Gravatt State High School, hereby express our concern at the decision of the Federal Government to dramatically reduce the effectiveness of the School Cadet Corps programme, and to withdraw funding. We respectfully request that the Hawke Federal Government reverts to the previous satisfactory system which gave students of all backgrounds the opportunity to participate in the programme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show: That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton , and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people), will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken . Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redevelopment of the Brisbane Airport becomes operative, ensure that- (i) no jet aircraft use the 32'14' crosswind runway; (ii) the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that: Woorabinda Aboriginal Reserve (population over 600), west of Rockhampton, Queensland, is severely isolated because of 34 km of unsealed road which can become impassable in wet weather, extremely high telephone installation charges (over $1,100 per phone) being asked by Telecom Australia, and poor radio and television reception. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government will: (a) provide funds to the Duaringa Shire Council to seal the 34 km of the Duaringa-Bauhinia Downs road which is now unsealed, and which services Woorabinda; and (b) call on Telecom Australia to provide telephone installations at a much more reasonable cost. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitioners most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We, your Petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape: We find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will. 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the prospect of the proposed Plant Breeders ' Rights legislation. The reasons are as follows: (1) We believe it will eventually lead to the restriction of sales of many varieties of seed. (2) We believe it will cause the disappearance of many useful plant varieties as evidenced by similar legislation in Europe. (3) We believe that it will cause the Australian seed industry to become foreign controlled. (4) We believe that a full public debate has not taken place and should take place before any laws are passed on the patenting of a life form. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take positive action as soon as possible to arrest the implementation of such legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We protest the proposed relocation of the Artillery and Infantry Schools from North Head, Singleton and Holsworthy to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales, and the Cobar district. We humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will ensure that the current investigation being carried out in the Central Tablelands is ceased forthwith and that no Military Establishment be located in the Central Tablelands of New South Wales. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the Soviet Union continues to violate human rights in Latvia. This is clearly demonstrated by the recent case of Janis Rozkalns, a practising Baptist who, on January 6, 1983, had his house forcibly entered into by K.G.B. agents searching for various religious publications. The K.G.B. confiscated 40 Bibles. Mr Rozkalns was charged with ''anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda'' and now faces a sentence of seven years deprivation of freedom plus five years internal exile. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled condemns the religious and human rights persecutions within the Soviet Union. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of 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 Mrs Darling and Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of North Queensland respectfully showeth- That the National Highway is the responsibility of the Federal Government, The Bruce Highway in North Queensland is of inferior standard for a National Highway, Queensland has suffered a 15% disadvantage over other states during the past ten years in road funding, And the state of the Highway is deteriorating as maintenance expenditure is insufficient to maintain even the present standard. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will allocate sufficient expenditure, to raise the standard of the National Highway in North Queensland to Department of Transport standards, in conjunction with the Queensland Government, within ten years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2% in 1983/84 over 1982/83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2%, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8%, Increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983/84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth that: Residents of Cann River and Mallacoota and surrounding areas in Far East Gippsland receive inadequate or no Television and Radio reception. The said residents, in spite of contributing to the same State and Federal Government taxes and charges as all other Victorians, do not enjoy the same rights of Television and Radio reception. The Minister for Communications has stated his expectation that an A.B.C. television translator for Mallacoota will be established towards the middle of 1984, subject to budgetary consideration. Southern Cross Communications Limited has advised the said Minister for Communications its interest in establishing a translator in the very near future for Cann River, but only if the Minister waives his requirement that the translator be of Ultra High Frequency and not Very High Frequency. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government act without any further delay to establish an A.B.C. translator for Mallacoota and permit Southern Cross Communications Limited to establish a Very High Frequency translator for Cann River so that the residents of Far East Gippsland be no longer deprived of their right to the news, entertainment, information and education of television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. Petitions received. Mr Goodluck proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is giving far too much information. He will resume his seat. I am sure that all honourable members congratulate the honourable member for Braddon, but we are dealing with notices of motion. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and my colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) will second: That this House- (1) notes that the Metropolitan Region Planning Authority (MRPA) in Western Australia has given approval to the commencement of high-rise development on the beachfront at Scarborough, Western Australia, and (2) regrets this decision of the MRPA as it runs counter to the expressed wishes of a substantial number of residents of Scarborough, and (3) calls upon the Western Australian Government to implement, at the earliest opportunity, a coastal management plan for the metropolitan region of Perth. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the great Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke Petersen, and the Delhi, C.S.R and Santos Companies and Partners in the Jackson oil field with a capacity of 43 billion barrels of crude oil and the Jackson Moonie pipe line, constructed at a cost of $177 million, which will be officially opened on 31 May 1984 in Brisbane and at Jackson in the fine Electoral Division of Maranoa, and (2) congratulates all those hard-working, fair-dinkum Australians involved in completing these great engineering projects ahead of schedule. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the House- (1) notes that the Opposition, through its spokesperson on immigration and ethnic affairs, has now changed its claims that immigration policy should be based on the discriminatory policy of ethnic and racial balance, and (2) welcomes this belated return by the Opposition to an approach based on decency and sanity. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with alarm the developing dangerous financial position of health funds providing cover to those who seek health insurance cover above and beyond that provided by Medicare; (2) deplores the inaction of the Minister for Health for allowing various commercial organisations to set up health insurance cover on the basis of inviting only the very healthy to become contributors, and (3) notes that- (a) if this is allowed to continue, the sick and elderly will be members of financially bankrupt organisations and in their hour of need will be left with no choice between Government hospitals and private hospitals, and (b) this negligence will also destroy the ability of Government hospitals to cope with the resultant increased demand. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and my colleague the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Minister for Health for providing a further $3.8m emergency funding for the program of aids for disabled people; (2) notes that this money is needed to meet the backlog of demands for aids for the disabled, and (3) commends the Government for funding the program of aids for disabled people for 1983-84 with $10.9m, an increase of 95 per cent over the $5.6m allocated in 1982-83. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) will second: That this House condemns the Government for its disastrous and dangerous handling of immigration policy over the 12 months to June 1984, and now calls upon the Prime Minister to forthwith remove the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from his present portfolio. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Gorman) will second: That this House- (1) urges the Government to give more emphasis in education planning and funding to the concept of lifelong learning; (2) is of the opinion that adult education, both formal and informal, should be more adequately funded, and (3) congratulates the Government on its realistic approach to education after 7 years of neglect under the Fraser Government. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that because of fears of criticism by some Aboriginal groups the Australian Bicentennial Authority has withdrawn its support from a project to re -enact in 1988 the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788, and consequently has endangered the future of this project; (2) considers that bicentennial celebrations without the re-enactment of the most significant and dramatic event in Australia's history is to reduce the celebrations to triviality, and (3) calls on the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to direct the Australian Bicentennial Authority to reconsider this foolish decision. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) will second: That this House- (1) notes that the participation rate in full-time tertiary education of 17-19 year olds declined during every year of the Fraser Government, from 10.2% in 1976 to 9% in 1983, and (2) condemns the previous Liberal/National Country Party Government for its neglect of the aspirations of young Australians, for its lack of interest in education and its ruthless running down of the skill base which Australia will be relying on at the beginning of the next century. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the ACTU came to Canberra on 31 May 1984 to give the Government further instructions on taxation policy, and (2) condemns the Government for its lack of decision-making capacity and its determination to distort the Australian financial system by borrowing the total amount of such proposed tax cuts thus postponing taxes, not reducing them. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) alerts itself to the grave difficulties currently being faced throughout Australia by the coal industry, selling into a world market at depressed prices; (2) considers that these difficulties are being exacerbated by Federal and State Government charges, unnecessary federal intervention in the market place and the intended imposition of yet another tax as a resource rental tax; (3) notes, in particular, the inconsistent application of the coal export levy, such that it now operates as a BHP/Utah levy, and (4) calls upon all governments to give realistic and appropriate relief by reducing charges and allowing the coal industry a free hand in competing into the world markets. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Health and the Government for approving no new nursing home beds since the Government has come to office; (2) expresses its grave concern over the new restrictive guidelines on the approval of new nursing homes; and (3) calls on the Minister to relax the Medicare 35 day limit on invalid patients in hospitals until more nursing home beds are made available. Mr McVeigh having given a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I allowed the honourable member to complete his notice, but it is out of order. Mr Hodgman having given a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice is out of order. I have advised the House that the-- Mr Peacock-In what way? Mr SPEAKER —I have repeatedly advised the House of rulings of my predecessors relating to notices of motion containing information and argument rather than being substantive motions. I suggest that the-- Mr Peacock-There is no argument about what he said; it is quite correct. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There have been a number of precedents for my ruling where information in excess of what is required has been given. I am sure that if the honourable member looks at the wording, he will be able to put it before the House in the form of a substantive motion. Mr Hodgman-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. You did not rule the motion out of order until I used the word 'shameful'. I submit that that word is not unparliamentary, particularly when it is true. The Prime Minister is-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He raises a point of order and he misrepresents the ruling. I referred to the information in his notice of motion, not to descriptions or epithets. Mr Hodgman-On the point of order, Mr Speaker: This is a matter of importance. Do you say that I cannot refer specifically to the address by the Prime Minister to the Australian Institute of Political Affairs on 26 May which is a matter of public record? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am suggesting that that sort of material is information and is not the basis for a substantive motion. I ask the honourable member to have a look at his notice of motion and the guidelines for notices of motion. I remind him that it is also possible for him, having given the notice in the House and having been ruled out of order, to give an amended notice for inclusion in the Notice Paper by handing a copy to the Clerk. Mr Hodgman-Mr Speaker, I seek leave to amend the notice instanter by deleting the words to which you object; in other words, the words 'the Australian Institute of Political Affairs on 26 May'. No other member has risen. Mr SPEAKER —All the honourable member has to do is give his notice of motion to the Clerk and it is included on the Notice Paper. I will take no more argument. Mr Hodgman-So you will accept it on that basis. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling and I amend the notice of motion. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Farrer shall second: That this House, in the light of the Government's major change in direction in immigration policy announced on 30 May 1984, now calls upon the Prime Minister to apologise publicly for his deliberate and disgraceful misrepresentation of the Opposition's arguments in the immigration debate over several weeks. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —by leave-The new arrangements that the Government has decided shall apply to the future oversight of Qantas Airways Ltd complement measures already taken by the Government to place the operations of Qantas on a surer commercial footing, and will allow the directors of Qantas a significantly increased degree of responsibility in conducting the commercial affairs of the company. As such, they represent the fulfilment of the Government 's policy pledge to give Qantas greater flexibility and freedom of operation in the management of the airline. They are also further demonstration of the continuing confidence the Government has in the Board of Directors and management of Qantas. In recent years, Qantas's financial fortunes, along with those of most other international airlines, have not been good. In the four years from 1979-80 to 1982-83, the company reported substantial operating losses. Qantas's operating loss of $47.6m in 1982-83 was the largest on record, and brought the cumulative total of operating losses over the four years to 31 March 1983 to around $123m. In terms of overall financial results however, Qantas's accumulated net loss over the four year period to 31 March 1983 was reduced to about $14m. Losses on airline operations were largely offset by the sale of major properties, the most important being the Wentworth Hotel in Sydney. It should not be overlooked that these large accumulated operating losses by Qantas occurred during the period of greatest economic difficulty encountered by the international airline industry in its history. The economics of airline operations underwent major and rapid change in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a consequence of increases in world fuel prices. This resulted in strong upward pressure on fares. The international airline industry as a whole was caught between the need to increase fares to recover higher costs, and a declining market brought about by the higher fares and the broader adverse effects of the world economic recession. Few airlines managed to record profits during this period, and several prominent carriers failed. The Qantas losses, although large, represented a much better financial performance than many other major airlines were able to achieve in the difficult circumstances confronting the industry. After gaining office the Government moved quickly to provide Qantas with additional equity capital. For far too long Qantas had been expected by earlier governments to operate on a commercial basis, but with a capital equity structure quite unsuited to the company's commercial needs. The $60m additional capital provided by this Government enabled Qantas to reduce its outgoings in interest payments. In addition, the Qantas Board of Directors undertook vigorous and sustained efforts to contain costs and increase productivity within the company. In November 1982 Qantas announced its intention to reduce its work force by 1, 000 employees by March 1983. This program was successful, and by December 1983 the company had its lowest staffing level since 1970. This significant slimming of its work force was achieved without corresponding reduction in services operated by the company, and much of the staff reduction was achieved through voluntary separation arrangements. These arrangements involved separation costs of $25m in 1982-83, but the benefits of reduced labour costs were evident in 1983-84 and will continue in future years. The Board of Directors improved the company's liquidity position, with consequent reduction in interest payments, through the sale of major properties, in particular, the Wentworth Hotel and Qantas House in Sydney. Other measures taken to reduce costs have included restructuring of services to meet changed patterns of demand on various routes, reduction in services on some routes where travel demand had declined, technical improvements to give increased engine efficiency and lower fuel costs, reduced holdings of spare parts, and general pruning of administrative expenses. As an index of the overall effectiveness of the various measures taken, the company's break-even seat factor, that is, the percentage of seats which must be sold on average per flight in order to recover costs, has declined from over 70 per cent in 1979 to around 56 per cent in 1984. The overall outcome of all these actions is that the company's financial results for the year ended March 1984 exceeded expectations. Qantas's unaudited group results for the year 1983-84 show a very creditable profit of $58.3m on operations. After making allowance for the taxation provisions and abnormal items the unaudited net result is approximately $58.5m. While the measures to reduce the company's costs are the dominating factor in this result, slightly improved traffic levels and yields have also contributed. The Board of Directors of Qantas has advised me that after deduction of retained losses, the amount available for appropriation is approximately $25m. The Board has decided to pay to the Commonwealth a dividend of 5 per cent on the subscribed share capital. This will be the first occasion since the financial year ended 31 March 1978 that Qantas has paid a dividend. The dividend payment will amount to $6,904,000. The balance of funds available for appropriation is to be transferred to development reserve or carried forward as retained profits. These results are very pleasing and I believe that honourable members would wish to join me in congratulating the Board of Directors, management and staff of Qantas on the company's return to profitability. It should not be thought though that this more favourable trading result can be maintained without a good deal more hard work on the part of Qantas management and staff. Qantas continues to face a very challenging trading environment. While there has been a recent small increase in travel demand, which is encouraging, it remains to be seen whether traffic growth will be maintained and strengthened. There is intense competition among international airlines that serve Australia for the available traffic. In addition Qantas has embarked on a major and necessary re-equipment program which will make very heavy demands in coming years on the company's financial resources. This program is to be largely financed through anticipated earning and profits. Hence while there are grounds for satisfaction that the company's efforts to date have returned Qantas to a profitable trading situation, there is no room for complacency or slackening of effort if the company is to maintain commercial viability while continuing to perform at the high standards for which Qantas is noted. It is a further mark of the Government's confidence in Qantas that approval was given in November 1983 to a Qantas fleet modernisation program totalling some $ 860m to be funded from the company's internal sources, but with guarantees by the Government of some of the associated borrowings by Qantas. This re-equipment program will see the retirement of six of the company's older B747-200 aircraft, and their replacement by nine new Boeing aircraft, three new B747-300 stretched upper deck and six B767-200 extended range aircraft. The program, the largest single purchase by an Australian airline will give Qantas the modern, efficient fleet it needs to compete effectively in the market place, as well as the flexibility to provide improved services to smaller gateway points in Australia. The introduction of the new aircraft, beginning in 1984 will ensure that Qantas is in a secure position to take advantage of the upturn now occurring in the international airline industry. It will better position the company in playing its role in promoting tourism to Australia, and in making overseas travel as accessible as possible to the Australian public. I now come to the decision taken by the Government to establish new guidelines within which the Qantas Board of Directors is to be authorised to conduct the affairs of the company. As a public company, in which the shareholding is fully owned by the Commonwealth, Qantas differs significantly from the generality of the Government's business undertakings. The directors of the company are not only accountable to the government but are obliged by companies legislation to fulfil all the duties and responsibilities of directors of a public company. This latter factor was a very important consideration in determining the relationship that should exist between the Government and the company. The new guidelines were developed by the Government in consultation with the Qantas Board, with this consideration to the fore. The former financial directive to the Qantas Board was implemented in 1949 and has remained largely unaltered from that time. I need hardly to point out that the environment in which Qantas operates has changed markedly since that time, particularly over recent years. Today's climate in international aviation is very much more competitive than the past. If Qantas is to be commercially successful in this new environment, the directors of Qantas should be given as much scope and flexibility as possible to direct the company's affairs. They also should be enabled to take timely decisions, to adjust plans rapidly to quickly changing commercial situations. Nevertheless, it would not be practicable for the Government to leave the affairs of Qantas solely in the hands of its directors. Because of the company's position as the only Australian airline authorised to operate internationally in its own right, decisions by Qantas to commence and terminate services could have important implications for Australia's foreign relations. Furthermore, it is inescapable that Qantas will be widely perceived outside of Australia as an arm of the Australian Government and an instrument of Australia' s foreign and trading policies. A further important consideration is that Qantas, although a public company, is not subject to the normal market place discipline of the threat of bankruptcy. For this reason the company would not be viewed by financial institutions as an ordinary commercial risk, it being recognised by such institutions that the Commonwealth stands behind the financial liabilities that Qantas incurs. It is not, therefore, practicable for the Government to leave financial matters entirely in the hands of the directors, because of the government's own accountability to the public in this area through the Parliament. The revised oversight arrangements which have been decided upon are intended to strike a realistic balance between the Qantas Board's responsibilities and the needs of the Government to ensure proper discharge of its own accountability to the Australian public. As I have already mentioned, the new arrangements relate to the framework within which the Board will be authorised to conduct the company's affairs. They do not relate to the question of ownership of Qantas and it is not intended that there be any change in the present situation whereby Qantas, as the nation's international flag carrier, is wholly owned by the Australian community. The directors will in future have power to approve all expenditure and leases for the acquisition of land, equipment and buildings essential for airline operations, and other programs involving less than $5m. This will give the Board the freedom to exercise its commercial judgment on a wide range of purchases and leases, while direct Government oversight will be restricted to major items, including the acquisition of new aircraft. This compares with the former requirement for the Minister to approve the purchase of any land in excess of $ 10,000, any equipment from overseas worth more than $20,000 or any lease of land for more than five years. Similar autonomy is granted to the Board to enter into borrowings of less than $5m with a limit of $20m of such borrowings in any one year. Formerly, all borrowings by the company required the Minister's approval. All former controls on the disposal of property and assets by the company are to be removed. Although the Minister for Aviation will retain the right to approve the creation of any subsidiary companies and any investment over $5m in subsidiaries , Qantas now has the ability to invest temporarily surplus funds in an expanded list of avenues for investment. It is intended in relation to the various limits of autonomy I have mentioned that the monetary amounts in which those limits are now expressed should be revised from time to time to take account of inflation and any other relevant factors. The company is to be given the flexibility to undertake such investments with minimum delay, which can only enhance the company's prospects of earning greater returns on such funds. The provisions relating to dividends payable by the company to the Government have also been updated. While the directors will continue to recommend the level of dividend to be payable to the Commonwealth, the former requirement for the directors to make every effort to exceed a rate of return on capital of 3 1/3 per cent has been replaced by an obligation on the directors to aim to ensure a reasonable commercial return for the Commonwealth on its total investment in Qantas. The directors of the company will therefore have the responsibility for determining future strategies, with the aim of conducting the company's affairs in as commercial a manner as possible. There will naturally be ongoing, close consultation between the Minister for Aviation and the Board on the company's objectives and performance. It is appropriate that the Minister, as the representative of the shareholders, be kept adequately informed of the overall activities of the company. This will, however, in no way detract from the Government's intention that the Board of Directors plan the company's future operations in the manner it believes most appropriate. The Minister's role will be to discuss broad future strategies with the Board of Directors to ensure that these take adequate account of public interest considerations and the Government's foreign relations policies. There is no intention that the Minister should become involved in detailed commercial matters, which properly are the responsibility of the appointed directors. A number of provisions in the outmoded directive relating to the treatment of various matters in the company's financial accounts, and procedures for requesting capital funds and additional equity capital are to be done away with. Another outmoded provision discarded is the requirement for Qantas to seek the Minister's approval before entering into agreements on tariffs with other airlines within the International Air Transport Association. It has been the practice for the past several years that Qantas be left free to set its own fares on a competitive basis in response to market conditions and the perceived needs of the travelling public. The Government recognises that there is a need for Qantas, if it is to maintain high and competitive management standards, to be able to attract and retain high calibre staff. For this reason, the Qantas Board will be free in future to determine the salaries of all Qantas employees, with the exception of the two most senior company executive positions. Salaries of the latter are to be determined in a way agreed by the Minister from time to time. Other guidelines, essentially dealing with the conduct of airline operations by the Board, represent formalisation of arrangements currently in place and to which the Board of Directors is agreeable. Further details of the new arrangements to apply to Qantas are given in two documents which I table for the information of honourable members. One of the documents gives the complete text of the revised guidelines which I will be formally conveying to the Qantas Board of Directors. The other is a summary of those guidelines and contains for ease of reference and comparison the corresponding provisions of the financial directive which is now to be withdrawn. Australia has in Qantas an airline of which it can be justly proud. I am sure honourable members will join with me in commending the Board of Directors, the company's senior management, and indeed all Qantas staff on their considerable efforts to place Qantas in the forefront of international airlines. The Government's new guidelines for future oversight of Qantas will further enhance the company's ability to perform as a commercially successful international carrier and to meet the needs of not only all Australians who wish to travel abroad but also the Australian tourism industry. I present the following paper: Future Relationship between the Government and Qantas Airways Ltd-Ministerial Statement, 31 May 1984. Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.37) —It is welcome news that Qantas Airways Ltd has made about $50m this year from its airline operations and that it will make a profit of about that sum for the full year from all operations. We all know that Qantas, along with many, but not all, other international carriers, has been suffering from a haemorrhage of losses and in particular, of course, operating losses caused by the very difficult and savagely competitive climate in which Qantas operates. I join the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) in offering congratulations to the senior staff, all staff members and the Board of Qantas for this turnabout in Qantas's fortunes. It was something which was badly needed . Qantas's future profitability will, I suppose, depend upon two main factors. The first factor is the level of competitiveness that Qantas can maintain. At present there is an industrial dispute which may have recently been resolved but which involves the question of how many flight attendants should be provided on non-stop journeys from Australia to the west coast of the United States. The claim made would mean that Qantas would operate with substantially higher numbers of flight attendants than its competitors. Of course, that kind of activity, so long as it continues, has a direct and immediate effect upon Qantas 's continuing profitability. It may well be-and I hope it will be the case-that that problem will be resolved. The second factor that Qantas will have to face, on top of the general problem of maintaining highly competitive operations, will be the success of its re- equipment program. It has entered into commitments for $860m. It has entered into these commitments on very long term forecasts of earnings. I think we all know that those kinds of long term forecasts are simply of a speculative nature once one gets beyond two or three years. If one knows what will happen in the economy or in one's country 12 months from now, one is exceedingly well off. If one were able to look down the track three years from now, one would be paid a fortune if one were able to tell governments and companies what the results would be. So those are the two major factors that Qantas must face for it to remain on the road of profitable operations. It is sometimes forgotten that Qantas was incorporated in Queensland and still remains a Queensland company. It was incorporated in the name of Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Ltd. It was back in 1949 that the then Government assumed full ownership of Qantas. When it did so Qantas had had many years of experience as an international carrier. In the original financial directive of May 1949 it was stated on the part of the Government that it was the Government's desire that there should be as little change as possible in the existing organisation and the managerial and operating practices in existence prior to government ownership. That directive has remained substantially unchanged since 1949. I welcome the changes proposed by the Minister although there are one or two areas in which I think he has not gone far enough and there are problems which need to be addressed and which I do not believe have been addressed in what he has said to the House. But certainly they are a marked improvement on the existing financial directive. I think it should be placed on record that the previous Minister for Aviation was seeking to secure changes of the kind which the Minister has announced to the House-not precisely the same but certainly substantially the same-when he was overtaken by events, as indeed were all of us on this side of the House, namely, the previous Prime Minister's decision to hold an early election. The financial directive which the Minister has tabled in the House provides: In conducting the Company's affairs, the Board shall have regard to these guidelines, the Companies (Queensland) Code, the Company's Memorandum and Articles of Association, and the Air Navigation Act and Regulations. That follows firstly from the fact that the Government owns Qantas and therefore , as the major shareholder, can call the shots. Secondly, Qantas must look to the Companies (Queensland) Code for the very simple reason that as a Queensland incorporated company it must organise its affairs according to that code and the directors' responsibilities and the responsibilities of officers of the company are organised under that code. Of course, Qantas must also have regard to the Air Navigation Act and Regulations for reasons that do not need stating. The changes made by the Minister have, as he has indicated, introduced greater flexibility into Qantas's management and financial arrangements. The points which he has made do not need repeating but the following question of general principle needs to be addressed: As the Government is the only shareholder in Qantas, what should be its measure of control? At the end of the day, as the only shareholder, the Government, as I said, calls the shots. I think that a proposition that should be looked at most closely is that the Board should be responsible for the direction of the company within the terms of its memorandum and articles of association and the provisions of the Queensland Companies Act, paying due regard to its responsibility to the Commonwealth as the company's sole proprietor. In other words, I suggest that the company should organise its affairs on the same basis as those of any other company incorporated under the Companies Act with regard to the views and the ultimate control of the Government as shareholder, that management and Board members should be judged by ordinary commercial standards and that in the event that any one of them fails to measure up-I do not suggest that this has taken place-the usual sanctions should apply, that is, the person is shipped out or the Board is changed. As I understand what the Minister has said to the House, he has put two arguments in favour of the continuation of existing controls or those controls that he has now outlined. First of all, he referred to what one might call the foreign affairs aspect of Qantas. I do not think anyone really quarrels with the proposition that the Government needs to be able to state and to direct that in certain cases it is not in Australia's interests that Qantas carry passengers to certain countries. The private carriers in the United States of America are always under the direction of the United States Government as to where they can carry passengers. One can really put that argument to one side because there is no problem with it. The control that the Government desirably would need to exercise could be exercised regardless of whether Qantas as a company organises its affairs entirely subject to the ultimate constraints of the owner- shareholder or whether it has to organise its affairs under the kind of financial directive that we have. The second thing that is said is that there is an absence of market place discipline, and because Qantas is wholly owned by the Government it is not subject to the same sorts of disciplines that apply to companies that do not have government backing. No doubt that is a statement of fact, but it has nothing to do in any relevant sense with why there should be a financial directive. After all, a board is chosen because it is thought that that board will do the kind of job that is wanted from it, and demands are put on it to do so. If the Minister is concerned that the Board might make extravagant and stupid decisions-I do not think that he would be so concerned; I am not concerned myself-there are many ways in which constraints can be imposed in terms of getting information on what the Board is doing or what the Board proposes to do. For example, one could have-I think it would be a very good idea if this were a requirement-half-yearly statements by Qantas as a publicly owned company, because the Australian public owns it, of its profits and losses for the preceding half year. The Minister, as the shareholder in Qantas or the representative of the shareholder, would be able to get on a monthly basis, if he so desired, a budget reconciliation of actual performance against forecast performance, as Qantas would no doubt have a forward estimate on a monthly basis of what it expected to achieve. It would then be a very simple matter for such a reconciliation of actual performance against the forecast performance to be given to the Minister. Indeed, he would be able to ask at any time for details of the operations of Qantas. As the sole shareholder, he has no constraints on him. If facts came to his attention that required action, he could take action. The two reasons given for imposing constraints really do not support the proposition that such constraints are necessary, not even the more flexible constraints on the management of Qantas that the Minister has outlined today. Before concluding I should like to point to one or two other matters. There is a major deficiency in the proposal that the salary levels of the two senior officers be set by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Minister knows this only too well, because it would mean that all other salary levels would be set by force according to the level of the two senior officers in Qantas, and that would mean that Qantas would be placed in a most difficult position in competing in the market place for senior and experienced personnel. I believe that the Minister would like to change that situation. It is a grave defect that the Government has not faced up to the need to allow Qantas to recruit personnel on an open market basis. In stating my second point, I wish to raise a specific question with the Minister. The Minister has eased the requirements dealing with the investment of surplus funds. I should have thought that under clause 6 those requirements were still too restrictive and that surplus funds should be invested in such manner as the Board determines. I have a particular question that the Minister may be able to answer, and that is: Do the proposals contained in clause 6 cover the investment overseas of surplus funds in foreign earnings? I conclude by saying again that I welcome the results that have been achieved. I hope that the profitable road on which Qantas finds itself continues. I acknowledge that what the Minister has done is most certainly a move in the right direction. I express my gratitude to the Minister that he has accepted the proposition that Qantas should remain a public company, which is somewhat inconsistent with his proposal that Trans Australia Airlines should under no circumstances become a public company. I can only say that the acceptance of the proposition in relation to Qantas seems to negate the other proposition which we will have to debate on another occasion. I am very glad that the Minister has acknowledged that Qantas, as a public company established in Queensland, has been set up with a status that suits the needs of the Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILLS: AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK INDUSTRY POLICY COUNCIL BILL 1984 AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK INDUSTRY SELECTION COMMITTEE BILL 1984 LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —May I have your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Bill 1984, Australian Meat and Live-stock Selection Committee Bill 1984, Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1984, Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984 and Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the six measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.52) —The beef industry is riddled with problems, and these cognate Bills are an attempt to grapple with a few of them. At the outset I must say that plans for restructuring the administration of meat and livestock research and development, which are so fundamental to the industry, are conspicuous by their absence. I hope that early in the Budget session the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will be able to bring this plan before us. Research and development are very much the linchpins which ensure the strength of the industry. We have reached the point where cattle numbers are down from 25.2 million in 1981 to 22.2 million in 1984. Exports, which were 459, 000 tonnes in 1981, rising to 624,000 tonnes in 1982-that increase was due to the drought-are estimated to decline to 450,000 tonnes in 1984 and about 400,000 tonnes in 1986. The gross value is assessed at being $2.4 billion in 1984. Farmers' incomes have shown a negative rate of return for many years, with the exception of 1979-80, with average incomes being minus $1,711 in 1982-83, and this year 1983-84, they are estimated to be $7,968. Beef consumption in Australia has declined from 50 kilograms per head in 1982 to 40 kilograms in 1984. With mutton and lamb the prospects are just as discouraging. The average saleyard price of lamb in 1984-85 is expected to be about 115c per kilogram, a rise of 5 per cent on the estimated 1983-84 level. Average mutton prices are expected to increase by 12 per cent to around 70c per kilogram, up from the very depressed levels of last year due to the increased export demand. Farm costs are expected to increase by 6 per cent, so obviously there will be no great improvement in either income or lifestyle. I have wanted to give the House this information because we need to establish the pattern of the state of the industry to understand the background. Once we understand the background, we come to the inescapable conclusion that in 1984 the industry is facing a watershed. Quite simply, over the last few years-maybe as far back as a decade-there has been a loss of confidence. The present Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation has not been the reason for this lack of confidence. But there is a widespread feeling in grazing Australia that the Corporation has tried to work in too many directions. The AMLC has been responsible for marketing meat and sheepmeat. It has been responsible for market research and for promotion advice. The consultation mechanisms which were conceived with great hopes have simply not worked as well as was hoped originally. There is no point in criticising those who have been in charge. I believe they did their best in a system which basically was not oriented to the changing circumstances of world and domestic trade. The Opposition and, indeed, the industry itself overall support the legislation . But we on this side of the House do have some very real concerns and, as far as the livestock industry policy is concerned, we will be moving an amendment in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. We oppose giving this Bill a second reading because we are opposed to the establishment of unnecessary statutory authorities. We will be moving an amendment to clause 7 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill. This is the clause which refers to consultation. In releasing the Opposition's primary industry policy document last week, I indicated that we believed in consultation and minimum government interference and control. This is the first time that we have had the opportunity of transposing our policies into legislation, and it is because we believe that there are rectifiable flaws in this legislation that we are now translating our words into action. As far as the AMLC goes, I am concerned that there will be a lack of formal consultation between the various sections of the industry and the newly structured body. We have a real fear that the new statutory authority, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council, could overshadow and replace the activities of bodies such as the Cattle Council and the Sheepmeat Council. What assurance is given that the Minister, when he is approached by bodies such as these which represent livestock producers, will not only listen to them but also take appropriate positive action? Will he instead refer the matter to his industry body with its myriad of representatives, such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and State meat authorities, where it will be debated by people who in some cases will have no expertise and no direct knowledge of the issue? It needs no vivid imagination to realise the enormous muscle the Minister can exert through an obsequious and sedulous public servant in the name of democracy. One can understand that legitimate concerns of livestock producers could well become submerged beneath a rousing chorus of 'Yes, Minister'. The Minister says 'yes' to consensus. But how can we get consensus when a number of the groups represented around the policy table will have views that are quite distinct, narrow and, in some cases, utterly prejudiced? One understands that these groups will be doing their utmost to look after their own interests rather than the total industry. I will cite an obvious example: Given the difficulties being experienced with the live sheep export trade, would it not be surprising if the ACTU advocate had any thought at all for the difficulties being experienced by the grazier through low domestic and export mutton prices, and the better position the grazier would be in, and is in, if he could export his old sheep live at a much higher price? Will this person-and I am merely using this as an example-arrive at a consensus or will he or she merely continue to do what has been done for years, that is, deliberately sabotage a great export industry which does little to jeopardise jobs in the processing industry? These sheep are not in demand in carcass form either at home or abroad. There is, however, a multiplier effect with the live sheep export trade-more income for graziers and their families can be spent on more jobs in industry and on the farm. Let me make it quite clear where the Opposition stands on the live sheep trade. We said this in our policy document released last week. We are totally committed to it so long as proper animal welfare standards are maintained and, if there are any difficulties on any aspect of the live sheep trade, we will ensure that there is adequate producer representation on any inquiry. Stripped to its bare essentials, too few people realise that the producers first and foremost are the industry. Other sections exist to service the producers. But if there are no producers, there will be no industry. We will, as I said previously, be opposing the second reading of the ALMIPC Bill. There is absolutely no need to have another statutory authority. Already there are far too many of them. My understanding is that this Bill is the Minister's own baby. I give the House fair warning now that this baby will never grow into adulthood. True to its socialistic objectives, the Hawke Government has absorbed the dictums of the founders of socialism, Lenin and Marx. They said to their comrades: 'Divide and conquer'. Let rural Australia be aware that some of this legislation is socialist dogma in its perfection: Set up a group which will aim to reach consensus, but which will be permanently hamstrung by disagreement because there is really nothing to bind them together; refer everything to a committee serviced by a hand-picked team from the Minister's own Department; then use all of this elaborate statutory framework as an excuse for the Minister to step in and do as he pleases. On our return to power we will repeal this legislation. As I indicated in our rural policy document, we want less and not more government interference in the affairs of industry and agriculture. There are two other points I make before returning to the AMLC Bill. The Minister proposes meetings about four times a year. This appears to me to be far too few given the complexity and ever-changing circumstances of the industry. Surely it would have been reasonable to plan for a meeting at least every two months. Clause 6 of the Bill requires that an industry conference be held every two years. Its purpose basically is to reach further consensus. But again the Minister asks the industry to take him on trust. Who will attend? What will be the voting rights? Why will the Minister not tell us these things? There has been ample time to come up with voting rights and attendance rules. The Minister has been rabbiting on about this legislation for months. But so concerned is the Hawke Government about rural Australia that it slips in this legislation at the very tail end of the spring session. I turn now to the annual general meeting of the Meat and Live-stock Corporation . Again the Minister has not told us who will attend the annual general meeting. Will the cattle and sheep producers be elected according to numbers of animals or weight of meat? There are differences in voting entitlements, depending on which criterion is used, and I give the obvious example of beef producers in Victoria and Queensland. How will the processors' and exporters' rights be established? Will it be on a sliding scale? Will there be a maximum and minimum number of votes? Why does the Minister not come clean and tell the Parliament these things? What three card trick has he got up his sleeve in the regulations? This Minister for lame excuses must not be allowed to run for cover and say it will be done by regulation. In his closing remarks in this debate, let him tell us what the voting rules will be. I know he may be a little tired after his belated trip to Japan and Korea, but I hope he can give us these details. We want to know, and I submit that the Parliament and the industry have the right to know. The people in the bush need to know their entitlements, just as others have the right to know. I am concerned too at the somewhat nebulous power of the industry at the annual general meeting in so far as votes of no confidence in the Chairman or in the Corporation and the fixing of levies are concerned. How does the industry, under the 75 per cent rule of both registrars, contain such increases in levies which are recommended by a corporation, but only one section of that corporation-and a very small percentage-is required to pay the levy? It needs to be made very clear-and it is the producer, the cattle and sheep men of Australia who pay-that it is not unknown for some people to be rather reckless with other people's money. It appears to me that the annual general meeting is nothing more than a facade. It just will not work. The Minister really has endeavoured to cloud the issue. He has set up a framework under the disguise of consensus but his real threat is revealed in his second reading speech, where he states: . . . provides the Minister with overall supervision of the Corporation's activity. Let those words mean what they say. That is socialism, and most definitely is not the free enterprise system that the Opposition promotes and upholds. We agree with the initiatives to make the Corporation have a five-year corporate plan. In our policy document we spoke about a master plan for agriculture. This concept falls within the ambit of our thinking. The right to raise money by issuing securities, subject to the necessary precautions, and the right to act as a sole trader and to trade in meat and livestock that it does not own are all initiatives we support. My understanding is that the industry also supports these proposals. For our part, we will monitor them closely. As a free enterprise farmer in a free enterprise party, I want to compliment the cattle producers for the decision they made to fund promotion by a levy of $1 a head. It will be money well spent. The domestic market is under pressure from other primary products and from arguable nutritional information being circulated in the media. We need to actively counter these measures at home and abroad. Indeed, when I attended the recent annual Cattle Council meeting in Perth, I was told that our displays overseas ran far behind those of our competitors-for example, New Zealand. The Minister places great faith in the Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee, consisting as it does of three processors and three producers. Without wishing to knock the concept, one can visualise the Committee becoming tied in its deliberations about nominations for the various positions. In effect , the danger is that the Chairman could have an all-powerful vote. If I might express a personal opinion-I stress it is a personal opinion-I would have preferred the Selection Committee to consist of three producers and two from other sections of the industry. We must never forget that the industry, as I stated previously, can never exist without the producers. The Minister has set up an elaborate framework of selection. One is always cautious of the academic approach. I think it is reflected here. I am not totally convinced by it. It needs to be understood that the success of the proposed amendments to the structure depend very largely on the quality of the leadership. Given competent leadership and goodwill from all parties involved, the new structure would possibly work very well. I hope it does. I want to sound a note of warning to the Minister. Whilst we of the Opposition have given the legislation our qualified support, he must not assume that, in government, we will support a structure which could more appropriately be transferred to other agricultural commodity boards or corporations. I signal my concern in particular at his proposal for the Australian Wheat Board. I do not support the proposals he has announced in this regard. I want to make some comments on the Bill concerning payments to the Northern Territory for disease eradication. It needs to be realised that the industry faces levies of $10.98 per head for each head slaughtered to meet the various industry expenses. They are as follows: $4.00 for brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication; $5.40 for meat inspection; $1.20 AMLC levy; 35c for meat research- to be increased to 54c in July of this year; and 3c a head industry contribution to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. On a more appropriate occasion I will comment on the excessive costs of the inefficient, duplicated meat inspection system we have in Australia and the announcement in our policy document that we will fully fund inspection costs for all primary produce exported where Commonwealth certification is required. Mr Lloyd —A good policy. Mr McVEIGH —I am indebted to the honourable member for Murray, who realises the enormous burden placed on meat producers by the action of the Hawke Government in increasing meat inspection charges by 200 per cent. The brucellosis and tuberculosis program is winding down in the southern States and is now centred on the eradication of these diseases in the Northern Territory. There are major difficulties to be overcome in the Northern Territory. The financial impact on the larger stations which are required to destock is enormous because of the loss of income and breeding potential. I am reliably informed by breeders in the Kimberley area that even well-established graziers, like the Emmanuel family, will go out of business through the very high costs required to find replacement breeders. I understand that a conference will be held in the Northern Territory to design a strategy to ensure that this most difficult phase of our program is finalised with adequate compensation to producers with real reimbursement of operational expenses and with the replacement breeder cost element taken into account. It is possible that 1992, given these circumstances, is not a realistic date for all regions of Australia. To date, over $400m has been spent on the tuberculosis eradication campaign of which 70 per cent, or $280m, has been funded by industry and $120m, or 30 per cent, by government. There have been real problems in the Northern Territory and, unfortunately, there has been some political tension between the Minister in the Northern Territory and the Minister here. I do not wish to comment on these political tensions, but I make a plea to both Ministers to forget about politics and get on with the job of overcoming the problem. These diseases are a threat to the future of the industry, and the industry must be above personalities. The Northern Territory has been criticised by the Commonwealth Government for not playing its part. This is an unwarranted criticism because the Northern Territory, when it obtained self-government, had to develop a strategy to eliminate diseases through a very large program with very limited resources, money and personnel. One can understand that. On the Commonwealth side, senior management appears to me to have had some difficulty in getting its act together , particularly with regard to solving the problem of developing a strategy for extending the campaign into areas where the Commonwealth has some legal responsibility for land, such as national parks and Aboriginal territory where cattle graze. Of course there has always been, and unfortunately there continues to be, the problem of feral animals. I hope that real work can be done to get on with the job, and I particularly hope there will be generous treatment for those pioneering families in the Kimberleys and the Top End who still possess those wonderful pioneering traits of hard work, self reliance and getting on with the job, looking after themselves and making a contribution to the economic life of this country, for which they should be applauded. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(11.15) —It is a great pleasure for me to enter the debate this morning on the very important legislation that is before this House, although it is somewhat disappointing once more to have been in the chamber to listen to the Opposition spokesman on primary industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), come out with comments similar to those of his colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I think, though, if one takes the comments of the honourable member for Darling Downs in their true context this morning, one can come to the conclusion, judging by the fact that there is only one substantial amendment the Opposition is proposing to move at this stage to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill, that, by and large, the Opposition supports the measures of the Government. I certainly commend it for that support. I think also the honourable member for Darling Downs is only too well aware that the concept of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation that is envisaged in the amendment Bills before the House this morning is generally supported by the industry itself. As the honourable member who preceded me this morning so correctly pointed out, the industry is indeed in a state of great crisis. The industry, to some extent, is lacking in direction. This is clearly evident in two recent reports which have been submitted as a response to the New South Wales Livestock and Grain Producers Association in agreement with the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association. I wish to quote from comments made last Friday, 25 May, by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reporter, Lyn Wilkes, in National Farm Report, which very clearly give an indication of the way in which the industry is lacking in direction at present. The report states: The two reports differ widely in their recommendations. One is by former Western Australian Lamb Marketing Board General Manager, Malcolm McSporran, the other by Management Consultant, W. D. Scott and McGowans International. McSporran urges total market intervention with acquisition of all lambs as a first option just in New South Wales and Victoria, but possibly nation-wide. He recommends a statutory marketing authority, funded by levy and pooling of domestic and export returns with exports to be handled by the West Australian Board because of its existing expertise. It then goes on to say: On the other hand, the W. D. Scott report takes a much lower profile in market intervention-- which would please, no doubt, the honourable member for Darling Downs in view of his preceding comments- recommending a series of evolving strategies. The first step is the introduction of carcase classification seen as immediately essential to adjust production towards consumer preference for leaner lamb and so build consumer confidence and demand. I quoted from those comments simply to illustrate the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty and a great lack of direction in the industry at present. That is why these Bills that are before the House this morning represent an attempt to alter the makeup and structure of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and represent a long overdue recognition that the Australian industry is in a dire position. The Bills themselves provide the administrative framework for the reform of the meat and livestock industry. Since the AMLC was established through a restructuring of the Meat Board, changes in the structure of the organisation have been a continual feature of the operation of the AMLC. However, one can only query whether or not the AMLC has always come to grips with the changing demands of the market place. All too often, on the question of marketing of red meats, one must ask whether or not producers or promoters either understand or appreciate the differentiation between advertising and marketing. It is therefore pleasing to me to see that the new package of Bills should ensure that the AMLC's general policy advisory role will change to an emphasis on three important areas: Export market development, red meat promotion and export control. Only yesterday I received the annual report of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia. That clearly pointed out some of the ways in which the consumers are demanding the red meat marketing issue be approached. I quote from page 7 of that report: The Australian family is also changing. In many cases both parents work outside the home, biting into the time available for food preparation. While some cuts of lamb lend themselves to rapid cooking, the more expensive roasting cuts have suffered. Again I guess that statement from that very responsible body further emphasises the fact that there is a great change out there in the market place. It is important for us to recognise this. The report also goes on to mention an interesting concept, something that I have been familiar with in my electorate. It mentions the concept of the 'Big Jumbuck' that is currently blocked because of the lack of finance. It caters for this aspect in two parts. The Sheepmeat Council report comments: The first envisages a chain of Kentucky-style outlets offering both fresh and pre-cooked mutton and lamb which requires minimum preparation at home. Because production would be centralised and outlets manned by a minimal number of semi- skilled staff, overheads would be low, but sales potentially high. The second part aims at a chain of upmarket Pizza Hut-type family restaurants serving sheepmeat dishes in surroundings featuring the Australian grazing industry and its folklore. So the report goes on. It has always surprised me to some extent that, while we have McDonalds, Kentucky fried chicken, Chinese takeaways and other fast foods in Australia, there is no Australian equivalent that offers Australian red meat producers, particularly lamb producers, something that could be available in portion-controlled, fresh and pre-cooked forms that recognises the dynamic nature of Australian eating habits today. I believe that, within the scope of the Bills that are before the House today, there is an opportunity for the new Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to address some of these important issues. We must recognise, as so many reports have indicated to us, that there is a changing attitude towards meat consumption in Australia. The 'Jumbuck' concept is an approach to marketing that I believe should be able to sit fairly comfortably with the new AMLC. Another rather interesting article that I came across during the course of preparing my remarks this morning was an article from an American magazine called The Furrow which, in the early part of this year, published an article entitled 'Restructured Meat Shows Promise'. It makes this point: Processing low-grade meats to look and taste like higher-priced cuts has been hailed from time to time as a potential boon to the livestock industry. Unfortunately, we have not always been able to come to grips with that issue as well. Last Tuesday the Government primary industry sub-committee had the opportunity to look at an Australian innovation in the form of restructured meat . Mr Ted Jones of Bathurst, who has been working on this 'Jumbuck' concept, addressed that committee. He was able to demonstrate to members of that committee some of the properties of this restructured meat. One of the significant aspects of this concept is the fact that there is a greater use of the carcass. Unfortunately, with present consumption patterns and present styles of marketing, the basic use of the carcass is restricted to a very small percentage, whereas, under this concept of restructured meat, it is possible to find that most of the meat from the carcass is used. The downstream effects of this are very significant. If we can move backwards from the market place to the producer the benefits of this are quite obvious. Mr Jones was talking in terms of a basic return to lamb producers of somewhere between $30 and $35 per lamb. That is a very significant improvement on the present price that producers receive for their lambs. I hope that the new AMLC will look very closely at some of these developments in marketing Australian lamb not only in Australia but indeed overseas. I have mentioned before that we need to look at the change in consumption of meat patterns and look at the reasons for this. As I have said before, we must not confuse marketing with advertising. In 1971 Australian consumption of lamb was 24 kilograms per head and mutton was 20 kilograms per head but in 1982, 11 years later, lamb consumption was 16.6 kilograms per head and mutton only 4 kilograms per head. Clearly there has been a massive change. Peter Cross in an article in the Land on 28 April 1983 stated: So introduction of mutton into the fast food industry would appear to be the most promising way to lift sheep meat consumption. It appears that out in the big wide world there is a recognition that we need to do something about our approaches to marketing if we are to save the total collapse of the Australian red meat industry. It is interesting that a firm such as McDonalds in 1980 used 4.7 million kilograms of meat, and nearly 7 million kilograms last year, or nearly 30,000 head of cattle in 1983. That demonstrates that there is a great capacity, if people are able to recognise that there is a change in attitudes towards the consumption of food. I have also looked at an interesting report by the Cattle Council of Australia which is headed 'Consumer Attitudes, Opinions, Perceptions and Usage of Red Meats'-an exploratory study with particular emphasis on beef. This study was conducted by David McKinna of the Cattle Council of Australia and the report is dated January 1984. Towards the end of the report are some conclusions relating to consumer attitudes and opinions. It states: The main reasons why consumers are using less red meat are: There is a lower use of red meat in traditional ways, e.g. Sunday roasts; Prevailing attitudes that too much red meat is bad for you; Specific negative attitudes toward red meat and health; Greater acceptance of food variety offered, and greater recognition of alternatives; Cost is an inhibiting factor; A busier lifestyle, with less time and priority given to shopping for and preparing meat. I urge honourable members who are interested in this very important subject, if they have not had an opportunity to look at some aspects of the report by the Cattle Council, to do so. It is well worth while looking at in the context of my remarks this morning. I think the other point that needs to be made is that it is important not to differentiate between red meats. We often hear that lamb producers are quite naturally concerned about developments within their industry but it is important to recognise that when there is a downturn in lamb production in Australia there are likely to be spin-off effects in both beef and pork as well. I have before me an article in the Age of 27 January 1983, written by Ken Haley, which provides some very interesting information about the consumption of various types of meat varieties over a period. Without going into all the figures that are mentioned in the article, in 1977 to 1979 the total consumption of meat varieties in kilograms per person was 110.3 but in 1983 that figure had fallen to 95.5, again further emphasising the need for the industry to look at the reasons why it is in trouble and why it needs to take new approaches. I would certainly urge that with the formation of the restructured AMLC from 1 July this year one of its most important tasks is to look at the new directions for the industry. I take this opportunity of congratulating the new Chairman of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation from 1 July, Mr Richard Austen, the Chairman of a very important company in Australia, Austen and Butta Ltd, which is largely concerned with the coal industry. Mr Austen is involved in marketing. I am pleased that he has been appointed to such an important position simply because I believe that a great deal of emphasis needs to be placed on the marketing of red meats in Australia. A pleasing aspect in clause 7 of the Bill gives the Corporation the right to consult any industry groups or individuals on any topic and to compensate those persons or groups for their costs and expenses that are reasonably incurred. I think that is a realistic attitude to take. If there is to be research, and hopefully a lot of development will flow from that research, it only stands to reason that those people involved in it need to be encouraged with compensation for their development costs. In general terms, the amendment removes the direct influence of the producer and the processor exporter groups and replaces this with a greater degree of ministerial control over the operations of the Corporation. The basic day-to-day administrative functions are freed from ministerial control but there will be no reduction in the overall control of the Corporation. I believe it is important in an organisation such as the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to have people who understand the exporting side and the promotion and marketing sides. The honourable member for Darling Downs commented in his speech that first and foremost the producers are the industry and I would agree entirely with those comments. As I have said before, it is important to look not just at the producer; we must go further down from the producer. We should be taking action that encourages producers to do the things they do best, that is, to produce the product that Australian and world consumers demand. We need to look not only at the producers and encourage them but also at marketing and at what the consumers out in the market-place, both locally and overseas, are demanding from our industry. I think it is important to have representation on the Board of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation that is not entirely representative of just the producers. Most certainly we have to recognise their contribution but we have to take a greater approach, a stronger approach, to the marketing of our red meats. I believe our approach to marketing has been a post World War II response, a 1950s response, to marketing. Fortunately the times have changed in many instances but unfortunately for the industry it has not caught up with the changing times and it is important that we recognise this fact. In conclusion, I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister for Primary Industry on his initiative in bringing these Bills before the House. I know the amount of time and effort the Minister has put into the drafting of these Bills and the widespread industry consultation he has had regarding these Bills. It is no wonder that he is regarded as Australia's most competent Minister for Primary Industry for many years. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(ll.34) —I reiterate the words of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) when he began his speech by pointing out that the meat industry does face quite a few problems. I will start by pointing out the size of the industry and particularly its effect on the export trade. In 1982-83 meat exports were worth $1.6 billion and of the exports 73 per cent by volume was made up of beef and veal. Thirty-five per cent of our total meat production is exported. There is no doubt that we have seen a very serious decline in the meat industry and the livestock industry in Australia. I will quote just a couple of figures. In 1976 the cattle population of Australia was 33.4 million and by 1984 it is estimated to be 22.2 million. That is a decline of over 30 per cent. By any imagination that is a very large decline and is something which should be viewed with considerable concern by all Australians. In 1970 Australia had a sheep population of 180 million. By 1983 that number was down to 133 million. I have to admit, though, that factors other than the meat value of the sheep are involved, causing the decline in sheep numbers. One of the most heartening things to find in the preliminary figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics is that it is anticipated that the sheep population has recovered by over seven million in the last year. I also venture to say that the sheep population would be lower if it were not for live sheep exports. Of course, these figures have been affected, to some extent, by the drought. In time, there will also be recovery in cattle numbers. That recovery will come about only if the meat industry can see long term prospects and definite signs of an increase in profitability. Of course, this has had a serious effect on employment in the processing industry. I will give, the House some figures. Since 1979, of the 180 major abattoirs in Australia, 35 have closed. Of those 35 abattoirs 21 were registered for export. Up until 1983 the number of people employed in the industry fell by 6,000 to some 39,000. The meat industry has had many problems over the last few years, not least of which-if we run through a short list-is the meat scandal and the royal commission that followed that. There is no doubt that that cost Australian beef producers many millions of dollars. We are probably still suffering from the long term effects of that disaster. If we look at the problems in the sheep meat area, as the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) stated, it was mentioned in the report of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia that we have a problem selling red meat in Australia. Of course, we also have another problem-one that was not mentioned-in some States related to the restriction on selling meat during certain trading hours when other meats such as chicken and fish are for sale. Red meat trading is still restricted after 5.30 p.m. in many States. Another problem faced by the meat industry, which, of course, is not addressed by these Bills but which I hope in due course the Government will look into, concerns processing costs. I quote from the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry of January 1983 on meat processing costs: These costs compare most unfavourably with meat processing costs in South America, largely because of differences in plant utilisation, labour costs and productivity. The inflexibility with which the 'tally' system is used to set labour earnings, imposes a heavy cost burden on the industry that can be supported only because we do not have to compete with the major low-cost producers. If Australia ever loses its foot and mouth disease-free status, or if the South Americans find a way to control the disease, or if for other reasons the US, Korea and even perhaps Japan, decide to accept imports from these countries, we will find it impossible to compete with our current processing cost structure. I think that is a very clear warning for the Government and for the meat processing industry. We have to get our act together in this area or we will face further decline in the industry. As the honourable member for Darling Downs has pointed out we have some limitations as regards the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Of course, one of them is related to the problem of dealing with countries that have single purchasing authorities. I will give one example. In places where countries purchase by tender, such as in some Middle East sheep meat markets, individual exporters can win a contract only if their price is very low. They then must pack poor quality meat to meet the low price. Next time around the tender specifications may be rewritten in such a way as to exclude Australian product because the importing country believes all our product is of poor quality. Worse still, an exporter may be so small in the world market that he can move from buyer to buyer taking profits by overpricing poor quality product. The costs of such actions are borne by the Australian industry as a whole, which means the producer. I think that highlights some of the problems which we have seen in the industry. I certainly hope that the proposed amendment to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act will overcome some of these problems. I will briefly mention something about the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation as it exists at present, prior to the enactment of this new Bill. It was established in December 1977 to regulate and promote the export of meat and livestock, as well as to promote local consumption. The Corporation has the power to be a sole trader but it has been very reluctant to use that power and, as well, that has always been subject to ministerial control. Exporters of meat and livestock are licensed by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. The Corporation also is supposed to assist in overseas market development. As mentioned by the honourable member for Darling Downs, the gross value of the meat and livestock industry is in excess of $3 billion. Meat represents 7 per cent of Australia's total export earnings, which makes it still one of the largest export earners. The operating cost for the Meat and Livestock Corporation in the last financial year was $13m. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that 85 per cent of operating cost funds were raised from livestock slaughter levies and export charges. In other words, the industry is almost totally self-supporting in this respect. We accept that there is a need for change. I think that this has been very well highlighted by Dr Geoff Miller in his address to the National Agricultural Outlook Conference earlier this year. Incidentally, I understand that Dr Miller has more than a passing interest in the structure of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I think he highlighted the real reason we want to see changes when he said in part: While Australian farmers are efficient, the same cannot generally be said of the non-farm elements of our industries. Although there are some exceptions, it is my view that the economic performance of our rural industries is very heavily constrained by the poor performance of non-farm activities. I endorse Dr Miller's remarks. I think the point I made earlier about processing costs is one example of an area where we have some problems. However, Dr Miller went on in his address to give some very clear warnings to governments on this. He said: Government responsibility is to create, and if necessary to reshape, the economic environment in which our industries conduct their business: to create and reshape, not to take over and control. I emphasise the word 'not'. I think the next statement is a gem- There are few industries less efficient in our economy than the government controlled ones. Dr Miller further went on in respect of government involvement to say: There should be an end to direct government controls over staffing and financial operations of the new corporations. Ministerial responsibility, parliamentary accountability and public scrutiny should not be confused with bureaucratic control. I think that those, coming from one of the architects of the new Bill, are very sound warnings. I hope the Government will heed them and ensure that government involvement does not mean a takeover. In the Minister's second reading speech on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill he stated: This legislation will also clarify the functions and powers of the AMLC, with particular attention to increasing its accountability to the Parliament and to those in industry whose levy payments provide the source of its finance. Those are very fine words. I hope that in practice this new Bill will actually achieve that aim. Unfortunately I have reason to question parts of the Bill. I will come to that in a minute. I question the statement particularly in relation to the producer's point of view. As has been mentioned before, without the producer there would be no meat and livestock industry. I think the producers can quite rightly claim to have, and should have, more than a passing interest in how the new Corporation is run. I also endorse some of the changes the Minister envisaged for the Meat and Livestock Corporation when he stated: The Bill provides for the removal of the restriction that the Corporation can only trade in livestock and meat that it owns. I think that is a very welcome move, especially in the light of the example that I gave before; that is, in cases of dealing with countries that have a single purchasing authority for all meat imports. I turn now to a specific part of the Bill to which the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) foreshadowed the Opposition will move an amendment because we are very concerned that the Meat and Livestock Corporation is not bound to consult with the industry. It may consult with other groups if it so wishes, but by and large it will consult only with the proposed Policy Council. Mr Andrew —Is that a spirit of consensus? Mr HAWKER —It has been put in those words. The other area of concern is voting rights for the annual general meeting of the Meat and Livestock Corporation. I draw two points to the Minister's attention. One is the question of who actually has voting rights. The Minister said in his second reading speech that they will be determined on the basis of livestock ownership. I point out to the Minister-I notice we have a Queenslander here-that Victoria produces annually 607,000 tonnes of meat in carcass form, while Queensland produces only 578,000 tonnes. In other words, Victoria produces more meat. But in regard to stock numbers, Victoria has 4.1 million head of cattle while Queensland has 9.8 million. I do not know whether that is a reflection on the efficiency of the different States. The position in regard to sheep numbers is reversed. Victoria has 25.2 million sheep and Queensland has 12.3 million. I draw that to the Minister's attention and ask how he will equitably allocate voting right entitlements for livestock owners at the annual general meeting. Mr Lloyd —That is a good point. Victoria has been sold short again. Mr HAWKER —We do not know yet, but we will make sure that it is not. I also draw the Minister's attention to proposed new section 30, which deals with voting rights at the annual general meeting, the removal of the Chairman and the right of refusal to raise levies. In order for such a motion to be carried, the Minister stated that 75 per cent of votes of persons registered in the producer category and 75 per cent in the processor-exporter category must be cast at the annual general meeting in support of it. I suggest to the Minister that in practice this will be almost unworkable. Obviously, certain safeguards are needed to allow accountability and responsibility; nonetheless, to get 75 per cent agreement from both of those groups would be well nigh impossible. I think the Minister ought to reconsider the 75 per cent figure because it will be very difficult. I turn now to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Bill 1984. I question why the Minister needs to have a statutory body. The Minister says in his second reading speech on this Bill: Its establishment with statutory status is necessary to provide a binding charter and to help me ensure its accountability. I am not quite sure why it is so necessary to have this accountability. The Meat and Livestock Corporation itself is the statutory body. We in the Opposition view with concern the thought of having yet another quango. Australia is already riddled with them. We do not see the need for another. A further concern is whether the Minister is considering using the Council as a means of filtering industry opinion; in other words, forcing industry to go through the Policy Council rather than consulting with the Government. Again, is this a way whereby the Minister is moving himself another step away from the industry? That is something we also view with concern. It has already been foreshadowed that the Opposition will, in fact, oppose the measure for these reasons. I mention now one area which, of course, is not directly involved but which the Government should continue to monitor very closely; that is, the live sheep export position. I have a particular interest, of course, in the port of Portland in my electorate. I know that the Minister is aware of the problems we have in Portland now. The State Government is giving official status to a picket line that the Australian Council of Trade Unions will not endorse by giving the picketers the right to direct the Victorian police force to stop trucks as they cross the picket line. Mr McGauran —What is he doing about it? Mr HAWKER —That is what I hope the Minister will tell us today. Mr Kerin —It was called off yesterday. Mr HAWKER —The Minister has just given me some good news. In conclusion, by and large we welcome the Minister's initiative regarding the Meat and Livestock Corporation. We will be watching very closely to see the progress of the revamped Corporation. For the sake of the industry we certainly hope that the Corporation is extremely successful. The industry has been in a state of decline for some years now. We hope that this will be one step towards reversing that decline. As I have mentioned, the Opposition will move an amendment to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill to insist that the Corporation consult with the industry. As well we also oppose the move by the Government to establish yet another statutory body to be placed, as we see it, probably between the Minister and the industry. Mr Ian Cameron —More red tape. Mr HAWKER —That is right, more red tape. Mr McGauran —More toadies for the Minister. Mr HAWKER —We have heard all sorts of expressions now. The Opposition will watch with keen interest the progress of this new Corporation. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(11.52) —These Bills deal with a number of matters affecting rural Australia. We hear more bleating from 'animal farm' over there, the National Party of Australia. It often amazes me how the National Party claims to represent rural Australia. (Quorum formed) Before I touched a raw nerve on the part of members of the National Party, I was saying that it amazes me that they claim to represent rural Australia when all of their seats are in the south-eastern corner. I can understand why they changed the name of the Party from the Country Party to the National Party; they had no seats in the country. But it is really a bit misleading to refer to themselves as the National Party when all of their seats are in the south-eastern corner, down in the front paddock. They have no seats in Western Australia, none in South Australia, none in the Northern Territory, none in Tasmania and none in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a city based party. It has seats in the towns. It is a totally misleading situation. The seats held by National Party members, of course, are in the cushy south-eastern corner. They would not know a thing about the outback. They would not know a thing about the bush. They would not know a thing about rural Australia. They know no more about it than an Eskimo would. The only party that can honestly claim to represent the whole of Australia, including rural Australia, is, of course, the Australian Labor Party. We hold four of the largest seats in Australia, covering about 60 per cent of the land mass of Australia, including the electorates of the Northern Territory, Kalgoorlie, Grey and Leichhardt. The seats held by National Party members are all in the south-eastern corner. The National Party should either change its name to the South-eastern Australia Party or maybe just be honest and call itself 'animal farm' because that is how it behaves. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to come back to the subject of the Bill and I ask members of the Country Party to remain silent. Mr O'Keefe —A point of order-- Mr Ian Cameron —Point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The National Party. Mr Ian Cameron —Thank you. Mr REEVES —This legislation deals with some important matters affecting rural Australia. Of course, the Australian Labor Party would be expected to bring forward important legislation like this because we do represent the whole of Australia, including rural Australia, outback Australia and people in the towns and the cities. We have given some priority to this matter. We have an excellent Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) who has brought forward the legislation . The six Bills are in two basic groups. The first group deals with various changes to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and it includes changes to the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act and the Live-stock Export Charge Act. The major achievements of the first group of Bills are: Firstly, to clarify the functions and powers of the AMLC and increase its accountability to the industry and to the Parliament; secondly, to establish a meat and livestock industry policy council to advise government; thirdly, to establish an industry committee to select high quality board members for the AMLC and later the proposed meat and livestock research and development corporation; and, fourthly, to provide a new mechanism for consulting the industry about changes in levies charged for meat and livestock slaughter and exports. It may well be asked: Why are these changes necessary? Earlier speakers have referred to some of the problems in the industry. There is no doubt that the industry has been through a prolonged recession due to the instability of international markets and exacerbated by the effects of the drought. For many years producers in particular have been frustrated by slow progress of the resolution of a broad range of marketing problems. There has been divisive and inconclusive industry debate on such matters as, to name a few, the adoption of carcass classification and the sales of livestock by description, sole trading by the AMLC in single buyer markets, industry stabilisation measures and meat promotion and inspection. Much criticism has been directed by producers at the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation for inadequate progress in dealing with the industry's problems. This criticism is commonly based on misconceptions about the Corporation's ability to take remedial action in these areas. This has led in turn to producers describing the Corporation as unresponsive to their problems. The three industry consultative groups-the producers, meat exporters and processors and the livestock exporters-which were established by statute as a link between the Corporation and industry have not fulfilled the original expectations. Their existence has tended to perpetuate industry divisions and divert the Corporation's attention from functions where it can exercise its powers. It is interesting to note that those three consultative groups were set up by statute, and the Opposition is now complaining that the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council that is being set up under this legislation is being set up by statute. In February 1983 the Cattle Council of Australia, after extensive discussions, proposed changes to the meat and livestock industry administration. These changes were intended to enlarge the AMLC's charter to enable greater involvement in domestic marketing issues, increase the accountability of the Corporation to the industry and the Parliament, and increase its co-ordination with State meat authorities. Following the election of the Hawke Labor Government, the Minister for Primary Industry said that high priority would be given to the resolution of the industry's structural problems. Clearly, there was a need to establish a key industry policy formation body which would bring together the industry's diverse talents and resources to provide a more rigorous analysis of and understanding by all sectors of the industry's problems and to produce policies with full industry support and consensus. It was also clear that there was a need to clarify the commercial functions of the AMLC and to strengthen the professional skills and experience of its Board to enable the Corporation to be a more effective operational arm of the industry. In April 1983 the Minister circulated a paper which developed the industry's discussions of the Cattle Council's proposals into a feasible new system. This paper was the foundation of the present legislation before the Parliament. Following the Minister's consultations with industry leaders a final package was agreed to in August 1983 and its principles were endorsed by the Government in October 1983. The Government agreed that, pending the introduction of enabling legislation, the Minister should establish the proposed Industry Policy Council and the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee on an interim basis to avoid delay in implementation. Under this legislation responsibility for developing realistic policy proposals to introduce changes into the industry will now rest with the Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council. It will be composed of leaders of the industry, with the assistance of industry expertise, working co-operatively in specialised working groups to advise the Council. The responsibility for obtaining the highest quality people for the AMLC Board will now rest with the Industry Selection Committee, which will recommend eight appointments to the Minister for Primary Industry. The new arrangements will increase the accountability of the AMLC to the industry. I am pleased to say that these changes have been well received by the industry. I refer to one recent example of an industry leader who supports the package of legislation that is now before us. In the 17 May edition of the Cattleman, Mr John Purcell, the Queensland Chairman of the Cattlemen's Union, in regard to this package of legislation, stated: I support the structure and principles contained in the package. Later he stated: . . . I believe the new AMLC board will bring a new dimension of professionalism . I am concerned that even after Mr Kerin's consultation, compromises and commonsense approach, some interstate organisations have the nervous nellies and want to back off. This to me is crazy and totally negative. Mr Kerin has my support and the support of the Cattlemen's Union. That is an indication that the industry supports this legislation. It is now up to the industry to work together constructively to overcome its problems and to advance the interests of the industry. The sixth Bill, in the second group, which applies specifically to the Northern Territory, applies retrospectively to payments made to the disease fund in the Northern Territory. While some may consider it insignificant, I think it is yet another significant indication that the self-governing Northern Territory is taken seriously by the Australian Government-The Hawke Labor Government. However , I think it is important to make a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the Northern Territory and the people of the Northern Territory and on the other , the Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory. While the Northern Territory and its people certainly deserve self-government, they do not deserve to have a Country Liberal Party government foisted on them. The Country Liberal Party Government's handling of the brucellosis-tuberculosis eradication campaign is becoming a national scandal. Its handling of the scheme is putting at risk the operation of the scheme not only in the Northern Territory but also in Australia generally. That has serious implications for the industry. Mr Ian Cameron —Come on! Mr REEVES —The honourable member may not be interested in the brucellosis- tuberculosis eradication campaign but the people in the Northern Territory, including the producers whom he does not represent, are interested. The Northern Territory Government has demonstrated its total incompetence in two areas of its administration of the scheme. The first is its accounting system. It is so bad that the Government has managed to overpay on the brucellosis-tuberculosis eradication campaign compensation budget by over 50 per cent; that is, in about nine months it has paid out $6m against the 12 months budget of $4m. On top of that a number of serious allegations have been made about the scheme being defrauded of substantial sums. The investigation of these serious allegations is a matter for the Northern Territory Minister responsible for police, Mr Everingham. It is now approaching three months since those investigations commenced. Any competent Minister responsible for police would surely have ensured that the investigations of such serious matters affecting the scheme not only in the Northern Territory but also throughout Australia were finished by now. Of course, they are not. I think only two conclusions can be reached: The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Minister responsible for police, is either trying to cover up the fraud to protect his Government and perhaps some Country Liberal Party members who may be involved in the fraud or he is hoping that if he strings it out we will all forget about it. I am not going to forget about it. It is about time the Northern Territory Chief Minister came clean on the whole issue. It is about time he discharged his responsibility to the Australian taxpayer and the Territory taxpayer by explaining how his Administration could have allowed a vital scheme such as this to be defrauded and at the same time overpay on the Budget by some $2m. The brucellosis-tuberculosis eradication campaign conference to be held in Alice Springs next month, which was mentioned earlier by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), provides a perfect opportunity for both Mr Everingham and Mr Tuxworth of the Northern Territory Government to account to the industry in the Northern Territory, and for that matter in Australia, for their inept stewardship of the scheme in the Northern Territory. Mr McGauran —You are really desperate; you are running scared. Mr REEVES —The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and the honourable member for Gippsland obviously do not understand that unless the scheme operates throughout Australia and the disease is eradicated throughout Australia the producers in their electorates will be affected just as much as the producers in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory cannot get away with running the scheme so poorly because it will affect everybody. Mr Ian Cameron —You do not know what your Government is doing with meat inspection. Mr REEVES —It is not the Australian Department of Primary Industry that is responsible for the difficulties with the scheme in the Northern Territory. It is not the cattle producers or the processors in the Northern Territory who are responsible for the mess; it is the Country Liberal Party Government that has got the whole scheme into such a mess that it has overpaid the budget by 50 per cent, thrown away $2m more than it should have, and at the same time has allowed the scheme to be defrauded of substantial sums. I hope that this brucellosis- tuberculosis eradication campaign conference next month does not turn out to be yet another Tuxworth talkfest. I hope that it results in some action being taken by the Northern Territory Government to improve its act. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the Federal Labor Government doing something about it ? The Minister is in charge. Talk to him about it. Talk to the Labor Government. Mr REEVES —The honourable member for Maranoa will be interested to know that in the 1983-84 financial year the Federal Labor Government approved a record increase in funding for the scheme in the Northern Territory and that that increase was received well by the cattle producers and people connected with the industry in the Northern Territory. The problem is that the money is going down the drain in misuse and abuse. All I am saying is that it is about time that the Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory took a look at itself and started to administer the scheme properly so that we can get the scheme running in the Territory. That will help not only the people and the industry in the Northern Territory but also the stars of Animal Farm on the other side of the House and the seats that they represent. I commend each of these six Bills to the House. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.10) —in reply-I shall address a few comments. First of all I congratulate particularly my departmental staff, personal staff and the speakers in this debate; the first two groups for the time and dedication they have put into getting these Bills together and for all the consultation and discussions they have had over the years with the industry, and honourable members who have contributed to this debate for their approach. The Opposition fundamentally still chooses to misunderstand the political realities of the meat industry and what the Government is trying to do. This legislation represents a very positive attempt by the Government to resolve a difficult and long running issue. The six Bills together, as I said when I introduced them, clarify the functions and powers of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and increase its accountability to industry and the Parliament. They establish a Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council to advise Government, establishes an industry committee to select high quality Board members for the AMLC and later the proposed Meat and Livestock Research Development Corporation and provide a new mechanism for consulting the industry about changes in levies charged on meat and livestock slaughter and exports. Why has this been necessary? The industry has been through a prolonged recession, as many speakers have said, due to the instability of the international market on which it is largely dependent and, of course, this has been exacerbated by the effects of the drought. For many years producers in particular have been frustrated by the slow progress with the resolution of a broad range of marketing problems. The former Minister kept on saying that there would be blood on the floor if he did not get some sort of agreement in this industry. He was never able to get it. There has been a divisive and inconclusive industry debate on such matters as the adoption of carcass classification, sales of livestock by description, the question of sole trading by the AMLC in single-buyer markets, industry stabilisation measures and meat promotion inspection, just to name a few of the contentious issues facing this complex and interdependent industry. I will address the Opposition's amendment when it comes up. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) mentioned several other points. Basically, the points raised by the Opposition centred on inadequate representation by producers and the fact that an additional statutory body is to be created. Actually, we wiped out three and even if we include a selection committee as another we still have a net gain of one, but I will not go into the detail of that. It still seems that the Opposition is possessed by this whole idea of a numbers game approach to the solution of industry policy issues. We are trying to depoliticise this issue for the one very basic reason that there is a fundamental clash between producers and processors in this industry. On the AMLC Board the industry, the producers, always had the numbers and yet more and more they were not meeting the wishes of the producers themselves even when they had the numbers. The source of all their anger was eventually centred on one man, the Chairman of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Geoff Jones. I think he has served the industry very well. Although his position has changed to a part time position I believe that much of the criticism heaped on him has been totally unearned. There have been problems with the running of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation but the main problem has been the parties involved in it-the producers and processors. We are trying to depoliticise this issue, to let the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation get on with its prime role and functions and have these industry policy questions or the industry's politics settled in a less embattled environment, with a wide range of people focusing on the issues, not on commercial matters in which the interests, because they are vested interests, become even stronger. I wish quickly to canvass a few of the points raised by honourable members. The question of the selection committee was raised. The two sectors reached voluntary agreement on this question and a balance was struck for objectivity. We did not think it was in the interests of the industries that one group have more power than the other. The Australian Meat and Livestock Research Development Corporation was mentioned. Legislation in respect of that body will be introduced in the Budget session. Turning to two general matters, I should like to say that there is no inclination on the part of the Government to restrict in any way the role of policy councils. I have seen reference made in other places to the fact that if that is done in respect of the beef industry it will be done in respect of the wool industry. I hark back to the fact that those commodities are basically different. The Wool Council of Australia well serves the wool industry. The beef industry does not have one simple council. That is why we are setting up an industry policy council that takes all points of view into account. No attempt is being made in any way to weaken the role or the negotiating ability of the producers. The fact that the producers will not pay for this organisation does not mean that an attempt is being made to limit the power and role of the producers in this industry. What we are is trying to do is to focus on the issues. Questions were raised in relation to the annual general meeting. I suppose no issue has taken more time in personal negotiation and negotiation by officers of my Department with the industry than that devoted to this question. As all honourable members know, the producers have fundamental differences. Those differences are based on geographic factors and methods of production. There is a lot of difference between the methods used by a fellow raising a few herefords in Victoria as opposed to those used by someone fattening hundreds, if not thousands, of brahmans in north Queensland. Account has to be taken that in this industry there is great disparity between producers who have a handful of cattle and those who have literally thousands. Some agreement has been reached. That agreement will be enacted by regulation within two or three months. To be quite frank, that agreement has been reached after a lot of number crunching. I shall cite some figures that I have in my mind. The range from 101 to 1,000 cattle equivalent-we are counting 10 sheep as one cow-represents 56.2 per cent of the whole sheep and cattle industry. That broad group, which is the very backbone of the industry, will be receiving 60 per cent of the votes at the annual general meeting. Those matters will be enacted by way of regulation. Agreement has been reached with the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia. I have spoken with organisations at the State level in order to take into account the differences between the States, and in particular the position of Queensland. The honourable member for Darling Downs seems to think that if he parrots the words 'free enterprise' that is sufficient reason to justify any argument he puts forward, or that if he parrots the word 'socialism' that is sufficient reason to reject any argument advanced. I think we should focus more on the issues because, as the honourable member said, promotion for beef producers by beef producers is free enterprise. Is he saying that promotion for wool producers by wool producers, but also involving government assistance, equals socialism? Abattoirs and the problems they face because of the downturn in the cattle herd could be defined as free enterprise at work. I think there needs to be more focus on issues rather than on slogans. The whole problem in this industry is that the producers operate on a free enterprise basis all the way to the sale point. The processes operate on a free enterprise basis, again all the way to the sale point. The reason the Government has had to introduce these changes is to facilitate marketing in the interests of all those involved in the industry, including the producers and the processors. There have been technical problems of facilitation which have not been able to be solved under the existing mechanism. The AMLC has been weak on some export questions, due to the fact that there is a fundamental cleavage within its ranks. That again reflects on the situation between the producers and the processors. The Government is trying to depoliticise the industry, to let the AMLC get on with its job of promoting, marketing and facilitating the sale of our export meats; but it is also trying to have the industry policy questions settled in another format. It is trying to get the industry into a position where it can solve its own problems rather than engage in some of the trench warfare that has been responsible for the lack of progress in the past few years . I thank in particular the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) for his contribution to the debate. I well know his interest in this industry. He spent much time in speaking about the fact that lamb producers in his electorate are trying to do something about their own problems, particularly with the big jumbuck concept. I well know his interest in the Blayney abattoir. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) raised quite a few points. It appears that I will not have time to respond to them in detail. However, I shall make some notes for him. The honourable member raised some constructive points. As he pointed out, the big enemy of red meat is white meat. The reason there has been a downturn in the cattle herd is not only the drought but also the substitution of beef for grain or beef for sheep meat. I have just received some figures that show that the sheep flock has actually increased by some 7.9 per cent. That has occurred since the drought. I suppose the situation has been helped by the birth of a lot of twin lambs. At least that is one section of the livestock industry that is starting to improve. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(12.22) —I move: Clause 7, page 3, at the end of proposed sub-section 10(1) add ''and shall consult with various industry bodies including the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia under arrangements acceptable to the parties involved''. I outlined the reason for moving this amendment in my speech at the second reading stage. The Opposition wants to seek to ensure that consultation between the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and industry bodies, including the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, will be on a basis satisfactory to the various parties. The current legislation provides only that the AMLC has the power to fund such consultations as required. I draw the attention of honourable members to the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in this regard. He expects that consultation between industry bodies and the AMLC will be less frequent, probably shorter and more directly concerned with technical issues than has been the case in the past, and that discussion of more significant industry policy issues will be channelled through the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council. We note that Council retains the opportunity to raise matters directly with the Minister and the AMLC. However, we are very concerned because we believe it is apparent that the architects of the new arrangements expect major issues to be either directed to the Policy Council by the Cattle Council or the Sheepmeat Council or referred by the Minister to the Policy Council after he has received them direct from the industry. We just want to ensure that consultation does take place. A very important plank in the platform the Opposition released last week was that it will consult with the industry. The Opposition wants to ensure that what it said in that policy is spelt out quite clearly in the legislation. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.24) —I think I addressed some of the comments made by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh ) in my reply to the second reading debate on this package of Bills. I say at the outset that the Government is not attempting in any way to diminish the ability of the two big councils-the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia-to be fully involved with this new scheme of arrangements. However, it is trying to depoliticise this whole industry and to get people to focus on the issues that have bedevilled the industry. The Sheepmeat Council and the Cattle Council have policies on a wide range of issues . There is no way that their ability to put those issues forward to the Minister or to the AMLC, personally or in any other forum, will be diminished. However, the problem is what is acceptable to the Cattle Council or to any other organisation on any issue may simply be unacceptable to the AMLC, or it may just be inconvenient. That is fair enough. Those organisations will get their chance to put forward their proposals. To prevent that would militate against the flexibility envisaged in the consultation process. Before anything concrete is done, I want to try to ensure that there is some flexibility in the consultation process. As honourable members know, currently consultations between the AMLC and industry consultative groups are a matter for agreement between the AMLC and the groups. This situation will remain. Some people have been concerned that I have wiped out three statutory authorities-the Livestock Producers Consultative Group , the Meat Exporters and Abattoir Operators Consultative Group and the Live- stock Exporters Consultative Group. If we are honest about it, we will admit that it was only in the last year or so that those consultative groups ever were really effective in going to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. They were constantly frustrated with that formal consultation. That partly reflected attitudes of the Board at various times, but I think inherently the Board had the attitude 'Seen that, done that, come back at some other time', and it never really worked, even when set up formally. That is why this time we are trying for flexibility and openness and are trying to depoliticise the process and have real consultation take place. I am sure that, under Mr Austen and the Board that will be given to the Government by the selection committee, that consultation will take place naturally and will be realistic and constructive. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.27) —Madam Chair, as you are probably aware, I was listed to have a full 20 minutes on this subject, and as a representative of a country electorate I would have valued that. The Opposition was criticised by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) last night for having insufficient interest in a Bill relating to education. It is interesting to note, therefore, the Opposition was able to muster speakers at great speed to prove that position absolutely wrong. The Government is unable to do this, contrary to the comments of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), who took the time to tell us what a wonderful party for country people the Labor Party is. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Will the honourable member take the time to speak to the amendment? Mr TUCKEY —I am advised that there is room in this debate, because of the arrangements and because of my removal from the speakers' list, for me to make comments of a more wide-ranging nature. The CHAIRMAN —Certainly. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member for the Northern Territory has unfortunately left the chamber. He introduced into the debate the usefulness of various members of parliament to their electorates. I am reminded of some of the things that he has supported in this place. I find that he was anti-uranium, which seems to be of some value to his electorate. Mr Simmons —Madam Chair, I take a point of order. Mr TUCKEY —Look, we have made an agreement on this. It is your fault that it has happened. Let me have my say. There is nothing wrong with it when you guys come at it, is there, nothing at all! Now, sit down. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Will the honourable member for O'Connor please resume his seat. Mr Simmons —On a point of order, I appreciate that the honourable member for O' Connor wants to be fairly wide-ranging, but I do not really appreciate the significance of uranium mining to this Bill. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. The Chair will keep a watch on the honourable member. Mr TUCKEY —I am drawing to the attention of Australia, particularly the people of the Northern Territory, the performance of their smart aleck member who does one thing down here and goes back to his electorate and does another. I bet he is anti-uranium when he gets up there! I bet he is anti-railway! I bet he is anti the Aussat arrangements we tried to put through to give remote area people some priority on the domestic satellite. I know how he voted because it is recorded in Hansard. When we tried to change the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund legislation to get the excise fiddle back on to roads, which his people need more than probably any other people in Australia, how did he vote? He voted against it so that the money now goes into Consolidated Revenue. That is the man who chose here to criticise the people who battled for those things on behalf of country people, as I did. We know how to look after country people, and it is a sham when those opposite make statements like that here. I do not want to go on with that because I have a genuine concern about this Bill. This legislation is supported and no doubt is a genuine attempt on the part of the Government to improve the problem in the beef industry. I am not sure that it will achieve that because I think we have too many bodies and because we are failing to recognise that the roles of the producer and the processor in the beef industry have to be looked at. I am not sure that bringing the representatives of those two sectors of the industry into the same room will necessarily improve the industry. In fact it appears to me that, over a period now, it has been the processing sector of the industry that has imposed a burden on the industry. It has been the one sector that has not really and truly been able to be flexible. It has found itself in the position of all other industries which service the primary sector, such as railways and grain handling, which have continued to grant wage increases by indexation. It is now the law of Australia that abattoirs will grant those sorts of increases. They are not able to adjust to the tough times other than by closing their doors, and of course they have been doing that in large numbers. It appears to me that there may be room within the program that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is laying down with these new bodies to look at whether processors should also be marketers of product. I can see one good reason for that: They would then be responsible for the handling of the product, in other words, the animal they turn into a product which they must stand up for . But they have always been able to shift the cost of their operation back to the producer. This is what worries me. I wonder whether there is not more room for an operation whereby the producer organisations make the sales and consequently call tenders from the abattoir industry, the processors, to conduct the necessary processes. This legislation gives more power to the AMLC to act as a single seller on certain markets, and I can see some benefits in that. That situation has been caused by individual processors cutting the price from Australia in competition with others in Australia. The only real beneficiary of that has been the purchaser in a foreign country. To my mind, what is needed is a more centralised marketing approach, not necessarily through government but through private enterprise, with the producers and their special organisations then saying to the processing industry: 'We want you to bid and we will give you a profit on the actual processing phase'. Of course, if the processors did not produce the product in the required form, or if they tried to add a bit of kangaroo at the bottom of the carton, they would not last very long in the business and everyone would know who was doing that. I think that is a thought for the Minister and his new meat and livestock group to consider. I understand that because we are now in Committee I am speaking to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill. Of course, that Bill draws our attention to my other concern. This package of legislation concerns the restructuring of the AMLC, a new Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council, and a new Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. Of course, then we have to have a couple of changes to levy Acts because levies are always associated with any of these arrangements. That worries me. I think we are getting too many people around the place. Then we have to have annual general meetings; and there are some little problems there of which we have already heard. I think some simpler arrangements would have been better. Of course, the real concern in the industry is still government involvement in meat inspection charges. Although we now have this massive paper before us, no solutions have been offered by the Government in that area. I am pleased to support the proposal of our shadow Minister that the responsibility for that matter rest in future with the Government so that industry will not be burdened by the ridiculous situation of the Government providing services at double the cost for which they can be provided by other agencies. For that reason, this morning I rang the Northam Shire Council to find out what its meat inspection charges were today. I was told that it is doing a bullock for $3.60, which is considered to be a little high. Unfortunately its previous charge of $2.80 was a little low and, because of the way that the State scale is set out, it had to jump to $3.60. There has been a change to that. The Council would still be happy with $2.80, but the abattoir it services in the main is having a variation in its throughput and the Council has had to ask for a little more. That compares with $10.80 that the Commonwealth charges-$5.40 at the works and $5.40 that it picks up from the taxpayer. This matter has got to be addressed. It is quite clear that there is something wrong. This is a massive burden compared to some of the other problems that have been established in this Parliament. I wish the Minister well with the legislation in this regard, because I know that the producers would like to see their industry better organised at this level. I just have some doubts. Why the heck we had to have a statutory authority for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council I will never know. The Minister gave us his reasons. He stated: Its establishment with statutory status is necessary to provide a binding charter and to help me ensure its accountability. If the Council is going to be there only to give advice, I do not know why it needs accountability. We can surely provide a binding charter that is simple enough without making it statutory. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper)(12.36) —The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill and cognate Bills before the House are a major turning point for the meat and livestock industries. I share the disappointment of the previous speaker, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), that the debate has been curtailed, but I want to make some brief observations in this Committee stage of the Bills. Firstly, I strongly support the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). The Bills propose a structure but set a basis for a bureaucracy. There is no doubt at all that this could, and no doubt will, be far from the objective of business enterprise. For many years we have seen the vexed issue of the marketing, the processing and the ultimate export sale arrangements of meat in this country. That vexed question has resulted in the establishment, first of all, of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and there is a great deal of friction within the industry. I am sure it is the objective of all concerned, all sections of the industry and honourable members on both sides of this chamber that friction be replaced by an effective business enterprise approach to all facets of the meat and livestock industries. Unless that can be achieved, we place ourselves at great disadvantage. The problem that we face today is, without doubt, one of disability to properly organise, properly manage and effectively administer the various strata of the processing and the marketing of meat produced by the producers of this country. What concerns me, and the reason for the amendment, is to try to ensure that there is a satisfactory outcome to the new proposals. The worry is that ministerial prerogative is very evident in what is proposed. We find a structure without knowing exactly what that structure will achieve and we find a real disability in terms of the voting rights of producers. I believe that this does constitute a grave crisis in the short term for the meat industry. Unless the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) moves effectively to ensure that there is no crisis I will be extremely concerned for the industry. I am concerned because we are at the mercy of more effective marketing by our competitors on the world market. That is basically what it is all about. The Australian producer is being saddled with extraordinary costs without any subvention on the part of the taxpayers to produce a commodity to go on to a world market. Entry into the world market by our competitors is on the basis of very high subvention , high subsidy-virtual production by organised government backing to produce huge quantities of high standard meat on the world market. We have to counter that by a sensible approach on the part of Australia. The six Bills before the House set out to alter the structure of the AMLC to produce what is known as the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council. The question one asks at once is: Will that Policy Council be a yes panel for the Minister and for a bureaucracy? If it is, it is doomed to failure. If it is made to be effective with proper participation from all strata of the industry-from the producers right through to the processors, to those who have the expertise in marketing and particularly in export marketing-it might succeed . The Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee referred to is nothing new. It comes from the history of the unfortunate divisions within the industry. I appeal to the Minister today to ensure that there is a repetition of good common sense within the ranks of the industry in this matter. It is all very well to use that worn and tired word 'consensus', but what is the use of consensus if it means that we are denying real business enterprise the right to do the job that it alone can do effectively? We have seen the mistakes of the past in the business of trying to deal with governments which want to take our product from this country on a bulk basis and the need to bring together the expertise within the production and marketing sector to ensure that those requirements are met and met effectively. This can be done only by a proper, sound business approach. It will be a dead failure if we just see a bureaucracy with ministerial prerogative and people kowtowing to some system within this country that leaves us even further behind in the very highly competitive meat market around the world. The Minister can well be tongue in cheek on real issues. I hope that what is realised in all of this is that there is no substitute for the hard, tough line in respect of business enterprise. As the honourable member for Darling Downs said, it is not simply a matter for the Government and its supporters, particularly those on the back bench, to say: 'Let us have a little bit of socialisation and that will solve the problem'. That little bit of socialisation could be the real rock on which we perish, as the honourable member for Darling Downs correctly said. Platitudes by the Minister in that matter are totally insufficient to satisfy the whole question of where we go on this important issue. I regret the time limitation. I do not want to take away the opportunity of some of my colleagues speaking on this important issue. This debate is significant for Australia, our economy and the future employment prospects of many Australians. It is lamentable that it has been curtailed in the way in which it has. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(12.43) —I support the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) in moving his amendment. I put a big circle around the word ' consult' in the amendment. In my opening remarks I would like to point out the lack of consultation by this Hawke socialist Labor Government with the cattle producers of Australia. I mention the Government's intention for the Australian Army to take over huge tracts of pastoral land in New South Wales. I believe that cattle produced in Australia are an endangered species. Not only do they have to put up with what the Army is doing, but also the conservationists are continually going around wanting more national parks and taking up good grazing land. The heritage Act could be invoked on cattle stations without the owner knowing what is happening. The Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare has been set up. It is full of animal liberationists who want to make the production of cattle twice as expensive as it is now. God knows what we will end up with. But honourable members can be dead sure it will not be of any benefit to the animal producers of Australia. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill will be introduced in this chamber tonight. It is a most iniquitous piece of legislation. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is nothing short of a Hitler. He has set up this Bill and, again, there will be no consultation with the cattle producers in Australia. Large tracts of grazing land will be taken up by Aborigines on which are heaps of stones, so-called sacred sites. The owners and producers of livestock throughout Australia will not be consulted. They have not been consulted. The Cattlemen's Union of Australia has come out strongly to opposed the Bill. The National Farmers Federation spent the first half of this week meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is totally opposed to the heritage Bill. Not only is the heritage Bill being introduced, but also the Aboriginal land rights legislation will be extended. The Aborigines want a national land rights Bill. The land rights Bill in the Northern Territory is a total disaster. It has taken up large areas of grazing land. Debate interrupted. The CHAIRMAN(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106A I shall report progress. Progress reported. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.46) —I want to mention two matters-one involving local government personal income tax sharing and the other concerning problems of the coal industry in Australia. The first concerns the announcement of the terms of reference and membership of the Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Financing by the Minister for Territories and Local Government, the Hon. Tom Uren, made not in this Parliament, which has initiated the inquiry, but at a public seminar held earlier this month in Canberra. This has left this Parliament no opportunity to debate or to question the process adopted in the Committee appointment by the Minister. However, it should be noted that one State has not agreed to the inquiry but will be included within the terms of the Inquiry itself, so there is very little consensus here. The appointments to the Committee, except for two, are unknown to me but also relatively unknown to local government. The claim is justly made that the appointees are expected to make up in academic qualification what they lack as a majority in the practical application of local government in Australia. In fact, there is not one elected local government representative on the Committee, no one from the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, no one from the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations, and no one from the multitude of country shire councils that could be vitally affected by the results of an inquiry. The opportunity of providing such specialist representation was offered by the Opposition in notice of motion No. 215, which appears in today's Notice Paper. I presented this to the Parliament as far back as 9 November 1983, but this has been completely ignored by the Minister. It has not been called on for discussion. Mr Hunt —Why? Mr BRAITHWAITE —One wonders why, and this is the only opportunity we have to question why that has not been presented. I understand also that the most senior member of the Labor Government supported the approach for an inquiry by the ACIR but was rolled. Again, so much for consensus. Item No. 5 of that notice of motion called on the Government to extend the terms of reference of the review to determine local government's proper share of the total Commonwealth tax pool appropriate to the additional programs and responsibilities it has assumed from the Commonwealth since Federation. Again, this opportunity for a meaningful inquiry has been rejected by the Minister. While the terms of the inquiry seek to define the respective roles, functions and responsibilities of each level of government, there is no requirement to ascertain the extent to which those responsibilities have devolved on local government from the Federal Government and then to what extent the total Commonwealth revenue receipts should be directed in favour of local government as a result of this devolution of responsibility for community services. Whilst I agree with the other objects of this inquiry, without the specialist services of the ACIR and the ACLGA and without the fuller inquiry that I have just mentioned, I fear that the result of the inquiry will be some major reduction in the amount of the personal income tax share which is the only untied grant currently available to local government. There is another matter regarding the personal income tax grant. In the PIT sharing arrangements for the year 1983-84 and specifically the grant made to local government in the State of Victoria, it has been brought to my notice that there was an undue delay-perhaps one could say that it was a deliberate delay by the Treasurer of Victoria-in making that grant available to local government bodies. The Municipal Association of Victoria had sought to reduce any delay in the transfer of these funds from the State Treasury to local goverment by requesting what I consider to be its legal right to have the funds, properly authorised, paid direct to the Municipal Association of Victoria's investment service. It had been estimated that there would be an opportunity interest advantage to local councils of between $80,000 and $120,000 per day in obviating the delay for the normal processing of cheques from Treasury to individual councils. The Victorian Treasurer, the Hon. R. A. Jolly, replied to the request and I wish to quote from part of his letter of reply to that suggestion. He said: This proposal has been examined, and there are a number of reasons why, at least in the short term, it cannot be implemented. Firstly, the State has a legal responsibility to pay the grants to particular municipalities. The terms of the Commonwealth legislation are such as to cast doubt on the legality of making payments to municipalities via 'MAVIS'. However, this objection could, perhaps, be overcome by having municipalities collect their own cheques and then deposit them with 'MAVIS'. This procedure would require amendment of the Audit Act and relevant Treasury regulations. Further, as you are aware, the State Government finances the operations of the Victoria Grants Commission (currently running at around $200,000). It is arguable therefore that the Government is entitled to the benefit of some recoupment towards these expenses from any interest which may be earned during the short period involved while the distribution of the grants from the Commonwealth is being organised. This is, of course, done without any undue delay. To suggest a State entitlement is to suggest a deliberate delay, not an 'undue delay' which is provided for under clause 7 of the legislation. The Victorian State Government in particular, among others has already profited by the Commonwealth's distribution of PIT by drawing back from its own responsibility and it has reduced its own level of funding to local government. It has in this way been paid its $200,000 for the Grants Commission many times over and it is morally and legally wrong for it to further profit in the use of funds, which were never intended to be for the States' to use under the Commonwealth legislation. If the Minister wants an investigation, if he is fair dinkum in this, let him look closely at this practice, at the States' retreat from their traditional funding responsibilities, and at the additional cost to local government for State and Commonwealth charges and taxes, such as the bank accounts debits tax, fuel excise and other government charges. The inquiry requires a much wider application than the present terms provide. It requires a genuine intention by the Minister to assist local government, not to hinder it. On my second subject, coal, I believe that this Government has no real appreciation of the difficulties the industry faces or the detrimental effects of its 'Utah tax' of export levies on industries viability, or of the concern that is being felt about the threat of the application of the resources rental tax. Certainly I applaud the dropping of the coal levy to other companies, but the same consideration should also be given to Utah, and it might be well argued now that the Government is acting unconstitutionally in imposing this charge on an one-company basis. The posturing of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) about the price recently taken by BHP-Utah shows a lack of appreciation of world market prices. To be realistic, it is South Africa that is artificially setting the low world prices, not Australia. We hear the Government threatening Utah with reprisals. That shows how remote the Government is from market realities- Mr Hunt —Shameful. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Absolutely shameful. Today there is a surplus of 20 million tonnes of coal on the world market. To an intelligent person, this would indicate a buyer's market. In such a market, all that enables Australia to sell is its reputation as a reliable supplier, the quality of its product and the competition for some of its high-grade coal. Those who support a single marketing authority show an ignorance of all those factors in selling into a market, and of the fact that coal is not just a one-grade product but is of many qualities and blends. How could one authority be sensitive to the demands for the various qualities and what prices they should command, and make decisions that require reporting back? It is a nonsense and cannot be supported from the point of view of rational argument. It receives support from the Labor Party and the unions as a commitment to a philosophy of the socialist Left, who would seek control of the whole industry, and this would allow domination by the New South Wales unions, with a smaller coal production, over a larger producer, Queensland , that suffers this domination through having a smaller work force in a more efficient industry. Two weeks ago I led a delegation of the Opposition coalition's Trade and Resources Committee to Queensland-one of the members is present, the honourable member for Wide Bay, the Honourable Clarrie Millar-for a discussion with the coal industry and to inspect developments on the Bowen coal basin. Apart from the problems of marketing and the Commonwealth, there is a growing concern over the pending Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill and the further restrictions that it could impose. The Government has been requested by the Australian Mining Industry Council and primary industry bodies to withdraw the legislation. I, too, urge it to do so. State charges in all States, where they contain elements of royalties, are too high in relationship to current world prices. In fact, prices of coal are still at the same dollar terms as they were four years ago; real values have considerably decreased. There needs to be a more realistic approach to the whole coal situation, where inter-State and inter-union rivalries have no place. The competitors are not other Australian mining companies; they are the overseas industries of South Africa, Canada and the United States. The Australian mining industry must stay in the world market. To relinquish its share, as some suggest, would be to give advantage to overseas marketeers and would mean a permanent loss of that share to Australian miners. If the Australian industry is to survive the present conditions, it requires co -operation from the miners and unions. It requires reduced State opportunity charges that are now being imposed and a complete reassessment by the Commonwealth of its taxing and marketing policies. The industry must receive the encouragement of unions and governments to reduce the unit costs and to provide productivity. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(12.55) —Education is in crisis in this country-and before the conservatives start their cacophony, let us look at some indisputable facts of history. The Whitlam Government systematically set about building a universal education system which would open up the benefits of education for all . It was the Whitlam Government that initiated a comprehensive rational approach to Commonwealth funding in education. It initiated needs based funding, free tertiary education, the introduction of the tertiary education assistance scheme , a magnificent capital works progam, the Commonwealth Education Commissions, the Curriculum Development Centre, and retrospective cost supplementation of education funding. Those are just a few examples. During the Fraser years of Liberal-National Party Government, we saw education slide rapidly backwards. Let us look at the post-secondary sector first. According to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-and all figures I quote here are in 1982 dollars-in 1975, the last Whitlam education year, $455m was spent on capital works and equipment in post-secondary education. By 1983, under Fraser's draconian economic and social policies, only $165m was spent. In eight years, capital and equipment expenditure was slashed by virtually 64 per cent. It was cut by 64 per cent in a time of the greatest technological advancement that this world has ever seen, and we are paying for that now. We shall keep on paying for that for decades to come. Where are the Australians today who can develop our new technology? Where are the educated Australians to develop our new industries that we need so badly? The failure of the previous Government to respond to education is one of the reasons why hundreds of thousands of Australians are today out of work, and it is also one of the reasons why we are a technological disaster area, and why we are being swamped by an educated, technologically advanced Asia. According to the latest report of the Commonwealth TEC, aggregate expenditure on education as a proportion of the Commonwealth Budget has decreased from 9 per cent in 1976-77 to 7.4 per cent today. Higher education spending as a proportion dropped from 4.6 per cent to 3.4 per cent. It is no wonder that there are queues hundreds of thousands long to get into our universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education colleges. Our young people and our old people have been denied an education-an education dollar that will pay itself back a hundred-fold in a lifetime. Every dollar that we spend on education builds our future. It builds the quality of our life and it breaks the bonds of poverty. We often hear in this House the hollow facade of concern expressed by those opposite when it comes to education and equality-and of late, those opposite who cry about the waiting lists for education in their electorates, those who condemn this Government for not raising the rate of the TEAS allowance, et cetera. Every student in Australia knows who kept TEAS and student allowances down so low without increase for year after year. It was not the Hawke Government. We increased student allowances by 9 per cent in our first Budget, and we are committed to bring in a proper income support system for young people -students, unemployed or whoever. Over the past year, the first year of the Hawke Government, direct outlays on education are expected to increase by 10.7 per cent, but what is more significant is where that money is and where it will be spent in the future. It is a primary obligation of every government in Australia to support the public education sector. There are just no two ways about it. This Government clearly accepts the diversity of education systems in this country and it has a commitment to education funding on the needs basis. The wealthy and the privileged, who are represented in our political system by the Liberal and National parties, believe now that education should be funded by the noise principle, not by the needs principle. That is, if one makes enough phoney noise about rights, freedom and democracy-hollow phrases in their terminology-then one 's privilege will be protected by this noise. I reiterate that this Government is committed to the needs principle. Those sectors of education that needs resources to build them up to an adequate and respectable level will get it, as they did through the Whitlam years and now today. Those who do not need it, except to subsidise the decline in their real fee levels and to build their extra swimming pools and sporting complexes, will have to wait for once, wait for their turn in history. It is about time that the lowest resources schools in the non-government sector woke up to themselves. It is about time that they realised that their viability and their future lie squarely with the policies of this Government, not with the rabid fear-mongering conservative parties and their wealthy privileged supporters. It is about time that some people in this sector took off the ideological blinkers that they have worn for decades, accepted what is being done for them and what is necessary for the common good of this country and accepted publicly the fact that they know to be the truth-that a Labor government has protected and will protect the poorest sections of our community, and that a Labor government is committed to an equitable distribution of wealth according to the needs of all Australians. Education is the key to our economic growth, the key to social development and equity and to our future prosperity. These indicators of a true nation, which is now nearly 200 years old, a nation that is based on the finest democratic ideals , must also be evidenced by the realisation that it is the primary obligation of government to provide a universal education system open to all. Private education systems, despite the window-dressings of scholarships and bursaries, are discriminatory. The very existence of fees is discriminatory. A free, strong and vital public education system must be supported by all Australians as a primary need and a primary obligation of governments. Without such a strong public system this country will sink deeper into being a serf state of the better education nations all around us. Only public education gives this country a common thread, a thread that holds our very society together as the Commonwealth of Australia. Public education accepts all people as equals regardless of their race, their religion, their social status, their wealth or their health. It is responsive and responsible to the Commonwealth and the common good. No longer must it be chained by a lack of funding and respect. In the years of Fraser and the Liberal-National Party governments there was a regressive redistribution of education spending by the Commonwealth. This redistribution was designed to do nothing less than condemn public education to mediocrity, and it was only because of the dedication of some concerned State governments, because of the dedication of teachers in government school systems against the morale-sapping budgetary cuts and political abuse, and because of the dedication of so many parents in the public school system, that that system has survived as it has today. The wealthiest schools under the Liberal-National Party Government received increases in recurrent funding between 1976 and 1982 of $189 to $509 per pupil per annum in real terms-an increase of more than 250 per cent. In the same time, the conservatives, who had the primary responsibility to the public education system, chopped funding to Government schools by 12 per cent. Let me repeat: In real terms, there was an increase of 250 per cent to the wealthiest section and a cut in the government sector by 12 per cent. That government sector represents more than 75 per cent of the Australian population. That is what the previous Government thought of them. The Commonwealth Schools Commission has recently released two documents. The ' Commonwealth Standards for Australian Schools' attempts to define a community standard of resources for Australian schools. It is the view of many members of this Government Caucus that the community standard definition is quite inadequate. This view is held widely, obviously in the community as well. Let there be no doubt about it. That concern will rise, and I welcome open discussion of that issue. Let us face it: We are in a crisis in this country in education. We are years and billions of dollars behind countries that many would consider to be educationally inferior to us. The previous Government set out to destroy public education in this country, to the detriment of the majority of Australians that they were meant to represent. We will be continuing to pay the price of that for decades yet to come. Now this Government, in accepting its primary obligation to all Australians, must invest hundreds of millions of dollars extra this year in public education. We need new capital works after years of negative growth. We need more recurrent funding and resources for the public sector. We need to spend on public education now-not next year, but now-if we are to hope to survive in this new world that discounts our mineral resources and puts so much value on our human resources. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.05) —I rise to express a grievance which I expressed possibly too forcibly here the other day and it resulted in my expulsion from the Parliament; but I am taking this opportunity to bring it to the attention of the Parliament once more. It is the failure of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to respond to a significant question that I put to him originally without notice in this Parliament and then, of course, at a later date, with notice. On both occasions I have failed to get an answer. I should like, first, to state some of the history of the situation. The circumstances with which I am concerned and about which I seek information relate to a question that I first put to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 3 April 1984, in which I asked him, in the interests of national security, whether he had been careless with certain documents and, in fact, as careless as he had been with money that he had reportedly lost in the Boulevard Hotel-some $5,000; I mentioned $4,000 at the time. The Prime Minister got extremely angry, which was rather surprising when one considers that the question was one of national security, but answered, of course, confirming both parts of my question when he said: The answer is that I was careless on neither occasion. Having, of course, been impressed by the Prime Minister's anger and realising that it was not to do with a section of national security, I wished to look then further into the matter. On the next day, 4 April 1984, I asked the Prime Minister another question in regard to this matter and pointed out to him that the amounts concerned were $3,600 in Commonwealth bank notes, $1,000 in United States currency and a quantity of travellers cheques-bank and number unknown, and that, of course, is in itself a surprising statement to appear in a police report. Then I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that section 5 (1) of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations state: A person shall not, either on his own behalf or on behalf of another person, buy, borrow- I was stopped at that time by the Speaker, who thought I was putting too much detail into the question; but I was asking the Prime Minister whether he was aware that in having that $1,000 in American currency in his possession he could have been in breach of banking regulations. Of course, the Prime Minister quite glibly answered on this occasion: Mr Speaker, I would think it apparent that if I made a report on this matter to the police, I have nothing to hide. Of course, that may be the case, and I am not here today to suggest anything or reflect at all on the Prime Minister; but of course, I can say from those two statements that the events that I refer to did occur and apparently $1,000 of American currency was involved. The Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations forbid the transacting of this sort of currency-not the having of it; the transacting of it-and it is clear to me that the Prime Minister now, with his knowledge, earned after eight years on the Board of the Reserve Bank, would clearly understand that. He has a right, of course, to tell someone. So consequently, I asked in this House of the Treasurer whether Robert J. L. Hawke was a member of the Board, and whether the Reserve Bank, of which he was a member, was the body referred to in the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations, and whether, in fact, Robert Hawke was an agent authorised by the Bank to transact this type of currency. Of course, this is it. When asked about a matter concerning the Government's economic activities or policy, the Treasurer gives us a history lesson about the Fraser Government, which is no help to the Australian people or this Parliament. He gave to me on this occasion some words, and then he said: The Prime Minister dealt adequately with that issue in his previous answers. I did not think that to be so, and nor did my colleagues in granting me time to ask the further question. So I put the full matter on the Notice Paper, giving the Treasurer all the information. Let me remind the House that not one of the questions asked would require great research on the part of his Department. They are all factual. They do not in any way ask him to express an opinion or do anything that he could not do promptly. Although I have a Notice Paper here which shows that it was then on the Notice Paper on 7 May 1984, the Treasurer has not deigned to answer. I should warn him that by not doing so he is creating a set of circumstances which allow the arousal of great speculation in this matter. While that was going on, Senator Lewis asked certain questions in the Senate of the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. The Attorney-General stated in a letter to Senator Lewis: If the Member for Wills was in possession of $1,000 of United States currency in Sydney on or about 21 February 1982, that would not have been a contravention of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. No, to have it is not a breach; but the section of the Act to which I have just alluded refers to every possible means by which one can acquire that amount of money, and forbids it-unless a person is an authorised agent or has obtained it from an authorised agent. Whether the Prime Minister obtained it from an authorised agent or was at that time an authorised agent are questions that the Treasurer can answer for us quite simply. Why does he not come in and tell us about this? Why does he leave it in abeyance. It relates to a law of Australia and the person concerned is the Prime Minister of Australia, and I am referring to a period in February 1982 when he was also a member of a parliament and a shadow Minister of the then Opposition. It is not good enough that this particular matter is left in the way it is. It is not good enough that the Treasurer avoids answering. It is not good enough that the Prime Minister does not want to know about it, particularly when he showed so much sensitivity to the matter. Let us look at a few of the facts there to support my argument. The reported amount of money that was lost that night is $5,600. That is about 16 per cent of a backbencher's salary at that time. It is a large amount of money to have in a briefcase and to leave in a room. More importantly, it is rumoured that the hotel, quite contrary to its obligations under the law of New South Wales or any other State-which, of course , indemnifies hoteliers against claims in relation to any property lost by guests in their rooms-has apparently refunded this money. But more importantly, when we inquire of the New South Wales Police to seek some information on the matter, to see that Federal laws are not being breached in regard to this currency, we find that not even the officers of that department are entitled to talk to each other about the matter. How in the heck they will ever solve that crime if they are not entitled to talk about it within the department I would like to know. Clearly, there is a lot more in this issue than meets the eye-not only the currency, but maybe where it all came from, and maybe where it was all going. But if the police cannot find the criminal, is it because the Prime Minister, for instance, does not want that person to be found. But more importantly-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I draw the honourable gentleman's attention to standing order 76, under which he should not impugn improper motives to any member of this House. Mr TUCKEY —All right, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not do that. I am just interested in getting answers to my questions. But when I read the report of the theft, I find that a duplicate key or possibly a master key was used to gain entry to the particular room. That may have been done, but we find also that no other room in the whole of the Boulevard Hotel was robbed that night. If I were a thief with a master key, I would try more rooms than only one. The question must be asked as to whether the person who entered the room knew a lot more about the circumstances and the situation. As I say, the hotel has now lost the money, and that could create a circumstance in which if any information is being withheld from the police, it means that the hotel has no chance of recovering this money or at least seeing that the offender is punished. I am concerned about this matter. Because he is the Prime Minister-lesser persons can possibly avoid having to answer on such issues-the Prime Minister should be answering me on this matter. So should the Treasurer, because the questions before the Treasurer at the moment do not call on him to impugn anybody but to answer matters of fact. It might be that the Treasurer might then have to consider his responsibilities in this issue, because he has had drawn to his attention what appears to be, prima facie, a situation relating to improper dealing in foreign exchange and foreign currency within Australia. As I say, that is forbidden by the section of the Act I have mentioned. Incidentally, the penalties for offences under it can be as high as a $100,000 fine or five years in prison, although I doubt whether such penalties would result from a charge involving $1,000. Some answers are needed and I am anxious that those answers be provided. I am, therefore, severely aggrieved that the Treasurer has ignored my questions. I can only presume sinister motives, because it is not a difficult question that I have asked of him. When that is answered maybe the Prime Minister will answer some of the other questions that arise from this situation. It is quite clear to me that there is a lot more to this matter than meets the eye, and that was supported by the Prime Minister's original reaction. We know of other events occurring around about that time, and we just have to wonder whether the Prime Minister has some answers that he would not like to give to this House. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(1.15) —I rise to express my very strong opposition to the proposed relocation of the Bendigo Army Survey Regiment unit to Bonegilla, which is proposed to take effect from 1992. For the past 15 years successive Federal governments, both Liberal and Labor, have advocated such a relocation to Bonegilla. Following the establishment of the Royal Australian Survey Review Committee in 1967, that Committee recommended one year later the formation of an Army mapping and charting centre which involved relocation of the Bendigo unit to Bonegilla. That recommendation was endorsed at that time by the then Liberal Government, and it met considerable opposition, of course, from the Bendigo community. Indeed, early in 1970, the then Minister for Defence, now the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, in reply to questions in the Parliament from the Federal member for Bendigo at that time, Mr Kennedy, and representations from the Bendigo City Council, stated: I must say that I am satisfied with the decision, and must confirm that the present plans to re-locate are entirely justified on administrative, technical and operational grounds . . . In the light of all the evidence, I am unable to put aside the recommendations of the Review Committee that Bonegilla is preferable as the site for the Survey Regiment. Later in 1970, the Army Works Committee and the Chief of the General Staff approved facilities for the co-location of the Army Survey Regiment, the map depot and the School of Military Survey, all at Bonegilla. Following further strong local and political pressure in the early 1970s, which was aimed at retaining the centre in Bendigo, the Defence Facilities Location Committee reconsidered the question of relocation in 1973. But it also recommended that that transfer go ahead. Finally, in June 1982, a facilities brief prepared by the Army confirmed the relocation decision and listed detailed justification in support of the relocation to Bonegilla. Late last year, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) confirmed that it was still the intention of the Department of Defence to proceed with that relocation of the unit from 1992. On the basis of that advice the community of Bendigo, earlier this year, prepared a comprehensive submission to the Minister for Defence seeking the retention of the Survey Regiment unit in Bendigo. I must take this opportunity to make it quite clear that the Bendigo community is totally and unequivocally opposed to the relocation proposal. Not only would the transfer of the unit have a devastating effect on the Bendigo local economy; there are also very sound arguments to suggest that the redevelopment and upgrading of the existing Bendigo facility would be far less costly to the Government than the relocation option and would at the same time offer strategic locational advantages in terms of Australia's overall defence capability. I turn now to examine each of these arguments in closer detail. Firstly, in an economic sense, the presence of the Army Survey Regiment in Bendigo represents a major component of the local economy. The annual wages and salaries paid to 239 members of the unit and the 32 civilians at 'Fortuna' total approximately $11m. This amount is estimated to represent about one per cent of the total annual wages and salaries bill generated by the Bendigo economy. Expenditure of this order within the local economy has a considerable multiplying effect upon the direct and indirect demand for goods and services, which is estimated to be in total about $23m. As would be expected, the loss of the annual wages and salaries bill of the unit would have a significant contracting effect on the local economy. A comparison with Melbourne assists to indicate the potential impact of the loss of 271 full-time positions on Bendigo's economy. For Bendigo to suffer the loss of this number of persons from its work force is equivalent to Melbourne losing a business employing approximately 12,500 persons. The resulting impact on Melbourne's economy would be regarded as an economic catastrophe. I strongly contend that no government would countenance such a deliberate loss of jobs in the Melbourne economy, yet such a devastation is proposed for the Bendigo economy. The second point I wish to raise concerns the redevelopment potential of the existing 'Fortuna' site in Bendigo. The facilities brief which was prepared in June 1982 dismissed the redevelopment of 'Fortuna' as a viable option. It contended that 'Fortuna' was unsuitable without complete and expensive modification, which required National Trust permission. It must be emphasised that this statement is inaccurate in that the National Trust has no legal powers whereby its permission in relation to this building must be obtained. The National Trust has classified the building, but the Army could propose to modify or alter the building to suit its needs. However, it must be said that in view of the availability of additional land adjacent to the Regiment and the historic importance of the building, the use of adjoining land for expansion of the facilities is considered the most suitable option. An area of Crown land of 1.6 hectares which adjoins the south-east corner of the 'Fortuna' property is already available for the expansion of the Army Survey Unit. The land has road frontage to Barnard Street which provides the existing access to the Regiment. The State Department of Crown Lands and Survey has advised that in the event that the land is required for Army purposes the Commonwealth could exercise its powers of acquisition to obtain the site. I should add that an additional area of land of almost 3 hectares can also be made available to the Government for further expansion of Army facilities if required . It is quite clear in my view that, contrary to the views of senior Defence personnel, considerable and significant scope exists to upgrade the existing ' Fortuna' site in Bendigo. The third point I bring to the attention of the Parliament concerns the economic viability of the proposed relocation. It is clear that in any context the maintenance of the value of assets held by a government obviously involves their continued use by a suitable organisation. In the case of the 'Fortuna' Regiment, the cost of redeveloping would be less expensive than the development proposed for Bonegilla. The attractiveness of the proposition to redevelop ' Fortuna' is further strengthened when one considers the benefit of using the Government's funds wisely. To ignore the monetary loss associated with quitting a facility is quite unrealistic, even though the facility may be costly to maintain. If the value of the buildings in use is compared to their realisable value and the resultant loss is equated to annual maintenance costs, it can be seen that there would be a cost benefit to the Government in continuing to maintain this facility. Extending this view by having regard to the common concept of opportunity cost of the relocation proposal further favours the redevelopment on the existing site. The final point I wish to raise concerns the effect of the proposed relocation to Bonegilla on defence manpower and personnel requirements. In considering any proposal to relocate a Commonwealth establishment, the likely loss of experienced and key personnel must be taken into account. In the case of the Army Survey Unit there is absolutely no doubt that a number of staff would choose to resign their position in preference to leaving Bendigo. In this respect, it should be noted that 183 members of the unit are married and living in Bendigo. Many have established homes, with children well settled into schools , and they have associations with clubs and organisations. It is well recognised that in the past the shift of Commonwealth operations has had the effect of causing the loss of key and experienced personnel. A recent example was the relocation of the Australian Antarctic Division in early 1981 from Melbourne to Hobart. On that occasion about 90 persons were proposed to be shifted. However, 50 per cent chose not to make the move and subsequently resigned. In the case of the Army Survey Regiment unit, it is quite clear that personnel loss would be significant and that consequent delays to the Government's mapping program would be considerable. In conclusion, there is an abundance of sound evidence which suggests that the Defence proposal to relocate the Army Survey Regiment unit to Bonegilla is unsound. Apart from the devastating effects that such a relocation would have on the Bendigo regional economy, it is demonstrably clear that the cost to the Australian taxpayer of the proposed relocation exceeds the cost of redeveloping and upgrading the 'Fortuna' site. It is equally clear that defence, strategic and personnel considerations are far better served by retention of the unit in Bendigo rather than relocation to Bonegilla. Whilst the proposed relocation is some years away, it is time- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(1.25) —My grievance today, I am sure, is shared by the greater majority of this nation's people. It is a very real concern over the Hawke Government's persistent, continued and unrelenting determination to undermine Australia's defences. As usual, whenever a Labor government moves against the defence forces, it is the reserves that bear much of the brunt, especially the Army Reserve. This Government started to emasculate the Army Reserve in the last Budget and has continued its destruction since then. Before the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) discounts this claim as an exaggeration of mine, let me tell this House that this feeling is shared not only by members of the Reserve but also by the Citizen Military Forces Association and senior regular Army officers. Concern is so great among members of the Victorian branch of the CMF Association that its President, Brigadier Ian Lowen, on 21 May this year, wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) expressing the Association's concern. In that letter he told the Prime Minister that members of the CMF Association were ' increasingly concerned about current trends in the Army Reserve'. Men of the standing of Brigadier Lowen do not easily write to Prime Ministers with complaints about their policies. In fact, the Brigadier wrote on behalf of his organisation to the Government twice in September, then in February and again in May twice. What grievances do these men and women of the Reserve have? These men, many of whom have devoted many years service, are distressed to see the Army Reserve disintegrating because of this Government's actions. Let us look at some salient figures. In the first four months of this year Army Reserve officer resignations and transfers to the inactive list were up 70 per cent on those for the same periods in 1981, 1982 and 1983. What is even more disturbing is that the majority of the reservists leaving are in the middle ranks, that is, senior non-commissioned officers and officers with skills in medicine, other professions and in technical trades. It is the high achievers who are being driven out of the reserves. It has taken many years to train these key men and their leaving will have a cumulative effect on the regular services also. There are several reasons for this exodus, all of which have been caused by this Government's changes in policy towards the Reserve. The erratic policy of taxing reservists' pay, later to be changed by the besieged Defence Minister to partial taxing, has been a major blow to reservists. As the official journal of the CMF Association, 'The Citizen Soldier', writes: The Government expects the CMF to continue to work unchanged out of a spirit of patriotism-Mr Hawke said so. Mr Hawke and his Cabinet haven't taken a half cut in salary-do they lack patriotism for this country of ours? Taking the kindest view the Government took its steps without realisation of their effect. It certainly took steps without even seeking, let alone obtaining military advice. Indeed here is a Labor Government which professes its intent to communicate disregarding any form of consultation, even with the Government's own committee for that purpose-the Army Reserve Advisory Committee. That is what the CMF Association's journal thinks of the Government. It is now a matter of record that the Government announced the taxation measures without any mechanism in mind. The consequences of this decision have been horrific for many reservists. For instance, the ordinary working man serving in the Reserve has been caught up in the payment of provisional tax for the first time. The members of university regiments were also hard hit by this decision. Let me quote the words of Mrs J. Millett, from Belmont, which adjoins the electorate of the Minister for Defence. In a letter to the Melbourne Herald of 24 October last year Mrs Millett told us that because her son, a member of the Deakin University Unit, now had to pay tax he will no longer be eligible for the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance for students. Mrs Millett also did some quick calculations regarding her husband's situation, who is and has been a member of the Reserve for the last 35 years. Her calculations show that for the privilege of being a member of the Army Reserve Mrs Millett will be paying out $ 1.46 per week. Mrs Millett concludes: The Government should have had the fortitude to disband the Army Reserve in the first place if this is the ultimate intention, instead of resorting to this type of subterfuge. Mrs Millett's concern is widely shared. Some 3,000 submissions have been made to the Coldham Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay, which is currently reviewing Reserve pay. The overwhelming majority of these have vigorously opposed the removal of tax exempt status for Reserve pay. This Government may be able to fool the public for some time but it will be caught out. On this occasion the Minister and the Hawke Government have been caught out in their determination to destroy the Army Reserve. It was this Government that announced last year cuts in the number of annual training days for reservists from 38.25 days to 36 days. In reality senior officers report that training days have actually been cut to as few as 30 days and, for some units, even fewer. If the Defence Minister takes off his tin hat and listens to his Army Reserve advisers, he will learn that for a soldier to have the bare minimum of efficiency he needs at least 26 days of training. In fact, senior Reserve officers regard the desirable levels of training for field forces as 43.3 days, for logistics command 45 days and for training command 52 days. But what is happening? All around Australia recruit courses have been cancelled with two recruit courses cancelled in Victoria so far this year. The reason? Lack of man days and insufficient recruits. The military skills competition for the Third Military District, scheduled for November last year, was cancelled, again through lack of man days. The 2nd Battalion, Royal Victoria Regiment has not had a full parade since late 1983. The reason? Lack of man days . But this Government continues its subterfuge even further. In August, the Minister for Defence said that the Reserve would be maintained at 30,000. A positive statement? No, a statement of deceit. The Army Reserve posted strength at that time was 33,523. The Minister was actually announcing a cut in Army reserves. The reserves have been ordered to reduce their numbers by 30 June this year. This is already under way with many units now being forced to discharge efficient soldiers. At a time when tension in the world is high and obviously set to heighten this Government cuts back on Australia's defences. In reality the reserves will be cut back to an effective force of around 24,000 to 25,000 or even less, as the 30,000 target announced by the Minister must also include reservists with less than the 26 days efficiency requirement. The field forces will be hardest hit. In my State of Victoria the Army Reserve field force will be reduced by 1,200. This is a ludicrous situation. At the very least, administrative procedures should be simplified so that Reserve units can expeditiously discharge inefficient soldiers and replace them on posted strength with efficient soldiers as soon as possible. Is it any wonder that morale is rock bottom and resignations are ever increasing? I know that the men and women of the Army Reserve are dedicated but there is just so much kicking from this Government that they can take, and kicks they have got. Yet another kick came in February 1984, a few months ago when the Reserve Branch in the Army office was abolished. This step was taken in spite of contrary recommendations from the Millar Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces to establish the Reserve Branch. Let us not forget that the Millar inquiry was set up by a Labor government. The time has come for this Government to come clean. It must cease hiding behind deceit, subterfuge and false statements of support for the Army Reserve. This Government should announce in the coming Budget that it intends to abolish the Reserve. It should admit its true aims and then take the consequences from the Australian public. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(1.34) —My grievance today is about betrayal. Betrayal of public responsibility, civic duties, public interests and betrayal in a few more areas. Some would question my right or capacity to speak on the local government situation in Newcastle in the last 15 months and the Newcastle Herald. Firstly, my qualifications to speak come from my nine years as a member of the Newcastle City Council. Secondly, in the current financial year the Newcastle City Council will spend between $4m to $7m of Federal taxpayers' money and that is, of course, of very serious concern to me. Thirdly, the Federal Government will be providing $3m to Newcastle for its foreshore development. Fourthly, I am one of the longest serving people of those who I feel have been affected. The betrayal relates to events in Newcastle since May of last year but to understand them one has to go back to 1974 when the Newcastle City Council, of which I was then a member, elected the first ever woman Lord Mayor in Australia. In my lifetime I have worked with many different people of varying skills and qualities but I have yet to meet a person of the capacity and the talent of that Lord Mayor, Alderman Joy Cummings. Alderman Cummings has been Lord Mayor for eight of the last nine years. She had majority support within the council for only three of those eight years, yet for the remaining five years she was capable of making the council productive, effective and responsive. The working relationship that was established between herself and other aldermen from various political interests was excellent and one based on trust and mutual respect. It was very productive. Newcastle in the last 10 years has gone through a renaissance, one that is very visible. The events of last year started with the leaking to the Deputy Lord Mayor of information regarding the Lord Mayor's secretary's promotion. Information on the personal files of council staff regarding regrading procedures is strictly confidential. The lady in question had more than 40 years of service. Her personal matters, affairs and applications were trotted out for the world to see in a light that she did not deserve. The betrayal was clearly by a fellow council officer or fellow council staff member because the information was not available outside the council officer level. That is the first level of betrayal . It was obviously aimed at the political events of September last year and the local government election. In May of last year the Town Clerk of Newcastle, it was subsequently discovered , supplied to the alternative Lord Mayor to Alderman Cummings, Alderman Don Geddes, computer tapes of the council electoral system. I had a conference with the Town Clerk and Lord Mayor in July of last year and suggested that Alderman Geddes had access to the council's computer systems, a suggestion the Town Clerk strenuously denied. We discussed the matter for at least half an hour. Early this year the Town Clerk indicated publicly that he had supplied computer tape. The second part of the betrayal is a personal betrayal of me, because I believed what I was told at that conference in July. The third part of the betrayal relates to the stroke suffered by the Lord Mayor on 13 April this year. She and her family have suffered a tragic loss and tragic pain. Newcastle has also suffered enormously because the respect in which she was held was very far reaching and profound. Following her unfortunate attack, no attempt was made by the Town Clerk or the Acting Lord Mayor in any way to reconcile or advise either her or her husband as to her allowances, whether she was covered by workers compensation or other such matters. Mail marked private and confidential, which had been opened by persons unknown was forwarded to her from the council. That betrayal is one, I think, of a very profound nature. The fact that the Town Clerk and the Acting Lord Mayor of the day failed, in any way , to initiate or formalise the position that the Lord Mayor was in at the time, left the Lord Mayor's husband no choice but to approach the council formally to clarify the position. That formal approach was also required in view of the hospital situation. If she was in fact covered by workers compensation, Alderman Cummings failure to notify would be seen as a breach of responsibility. During the last fifteen months in Newcastle there has been a series-I indicated that it started with the Lord Mayor's secretary-of information being made available to people who had no official right to it. Information was supplied on computer tapes to people who had no right to it. Furthermore, the people supplying it, clearly had no statutory authority to supply it. That to my mind is very clear. It means they had no legal right to provide information, therefore the information was illegally obtained and illegally used. That, to my mind, is nothing less than a criminal conspiracy. There have also been some other interesting leaks or betrayals of confidence in that time. Shortland County Council reports have suddenly appeared in very large detail in the pages of the Newcastle Herald. A report of a local government inspector was, in fact, available to reporters from the Newcastle Herald prior to being circulated to the aldermen of the council in general. It has become clear that the Town Clerk in recent days has discussed with reporters from the Newcastle Herald a letter that was received. He is quoted in the Press as saying that it explained why the Lord Mayor's allowance had not been paid at the normal time. In fact, the correspondence he received was from the Lord Mayor's solicitor; it was personal correspondence to establish her rights and relationship with council. It seems to me that for a very long time people in senior positions in the Newcastle City Council have been having discussions with people who had no right to access to the information being provided. That betrayal is one of public responsibility. All through this whole grubby exercise has been an enormous willingness by a self-styled senior reporter from the Newcastle Herald to attempt to make these issues important. Newcastle has serious problems of unemployment, in the steel industry and in the whole economy . The matters that the Newcastle Herald seems to devote itself to consistently, and in a major way, are essentially personal and trivial. They will not affect the problems that those in Newcastle are suffering. In fact, it is interesting to conjecture the source of the information. To my mind, the reporting indicates that source. It is very hard to believe that journalists with such excellent access to confidential information do not pay the price that that information fetches. I have no doubt that if they reported accurately and fairly, the sources would disappear; the information would no longer be available. The Newcastle Herald was once a great paper of Australia but in recent years its decline in circulation, standards and public support has become most noticeable. Whether it sees this new campaign of salaciousness, poor taste, degrading and grubby journalism as being a way to recover its circulation, I do not know. But I can assure that newspaper that, after 10 years in public office I know the people of Newcastle and I know they do not support what is going on. I suggest that the people of Newcastle themselves have been betrayed by their own newspaper. Newcastle is a great city with great people. Not only do they deserve better but also I think they will indicate in the best way they can that they demand better. My grievance is not about a single betrayal but a series that have been going on for some time. The 10 minutes I have in which to speak is very brief, and I will bring some of these matters back for the House's attention in the weeks ahead. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(1.44) —My grievance concerns the editorial in the publication News Weekly on 2 May 1984. The headline in that editorial states: ' Why Liberalism is going down the drain', and the charge at the conclusion of the editorial states: . . . the penetration of Liberal policy on so-called 'women's issues' by Mr Macphee and Mrs Sibree are generally and rightly understood to be selling the family down the river. Now that charge is untrue and preposterous and anyone who knows much about me knows how much my family means to me. Indeed, I cannot imagine more family oriented persons than my wife and myself. But it is not the personal hurt that that charge occasions which causes me to speak today; it is the damage to my reputation. I will therefore speak without prejudice to my right to sue the publication for defamation. As I understand it, that publication is of the National Civic Council so, presumably, the views expressed are those of the National Civic Council. The editorial states the obvious in very plain print that it represents the official policy of News Weekly. I understand its founder and leader, the National Civic Council leader, is Mr Santamaria and presumably it represents his policy as well. This is not the first time that the publication has carried material expressing hostility to me. Sometimes it has been as hostile to my wife. On each occasion the vitriol has been either totally unsubstantiated or has been based on distortions, fabrications or combinations of both. In the past I have ignored them on the basis that the publication was insignificant and the allegations were so absurd that no one would give them credence. In the past year, however, I have received evidence of a persistent and pernicious campaign of character assassination upon my wife and me by members of the National Civic Council. Being a Democrat I have tolerated the campaign and have been reluctant to sue the persons concerned for defamation. I put them on notice today, however, that I will not tolerate that vicious campaign of lies any longer. The National Civic Council apparently works on the basis that if it tells a lie often enough people will believe it. Such tactics are tactics of totalitarians and cowards, not Democrats or Liberals. The News Weekly editorial of 2 May provides no substance at all for the charge that either I or Mrs Sibree, whom it mentions too, are 'Selling the family down the river'. If it is true, as News Weekly claims, that this is generally understood to be so then, of course, I will presumably be defeated at the next election and all of its worries will be over. But if it is even believed by anyone it is because people believe what they read in News Weekly or in the Toorak Times which sometimes publishes equally unsubstantiated attacks on me by National Civic Council members and identities. There is no other basis for believing what the article asserts is believed. The fact that my personal vote continues to rise even when the Liberal Party has swings against it ought to cause them to consider whether it is widely believed. There is nothing in my words or in my conduct which could possibly justify such a conclusion. Moreover, News Weekly says that not only is this generally understood but also it is rightly understood. Yet nowhere does it provide evidence for this astounding proposition. The real criticism is 'the penetration of Liberal policy on so called women's issues by Mr Macphee and Mrs Sibree'. So it is really a criticism of Liberal policy. I do not doubt that the National Civic Council might find aspects of Liberal policy incompatible with National Civic Council policy. Where it does it is the NCC's democratic right to say so, but the NCC is not the Liberal Party and has no basis for asserting that liberalism is going down the drain. Because Mrs Sibree and myself have the official responsibilities of propounding some areas of Liberal Party policy with which the NCC disagrees, it has decided to set out systematically to destroy our reputations. Let me briefly remind the House of official statements of both liberalism and Liberal policy which precede my involvement in major policy formation and presentation. I quote first from a book called Liberal Thinking by Mr Chris Puplick and Sir Robert Southey, published by the Macmillan Co. of Australia Pty Ltd in 1980 and promoted by the Liberal Party of Australia. On page 52 the authors state: The family has always been a critical factor in the philosophy of liberalism for a number of reasons. It is the private sphere within which the individual may live most of his life. It is the principal sphere within which the individual's needs for close and supporting relationships are met. It is the primary institution through which the individual learns values and gains an understanding about the world. It is primarily within the family that the individual develops his conception of himself, of his worth, his capabilities and his values. I subscribe completely to that philosophy. Nothing that I have ever said or done could be regarded as being inconsistent with it. Let me also remind the House of the policy commitment of the Liberal Party and what was then known as the Country Party in the election campaign in 1974, at which election I was elected. I had nothing to do with the writing of the policies. The document called 'The Way Ahead' at page 51 quotes at length the approach of those two parties to the question of lifting the status of women to one of equality with men and removing all the areas of discrimination suffered by women. I read that at length in the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill which I do not doubt is one of the areas in which the National Civic Council regards me as having offended. It is recorded at page 340 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 1 March and I will not quote it again. It represents a very succinct statement of principles of liberalism to which I fully subscribe and every statement and action of mine is completely consistent with that statement, now a decade old. It represents a positive and practical approach to all families and the Liberal Party would be failing those families if it did not address their needs. I challenge the editor of News Weekly to produce evidence to justify his assertions that firstly, I am generally understood to be selling the family down the river; and, secondly, I am rightly understood to be doing so. If the evidence is not produced in the next issue of News Weekly in answer to each of those questions or unless an appropriate apology is made, an apology acceptable to me and given the same prominence as the editorial, I will place the matter in the hands of my solicitors. I also warn, as I did a moment ago, that infamous publication, the Toorak Times, to which I have had to reply in this House before , that if I am defamed again by it I will adopt the same strategy as that adopted by Mr Costigan, the Royal Commissioner, and sue the distributors of the Toorak Times. The House is aware that the need to go to that elaborate and expensive procedure is because the publisher, and most of the regular journalists of that infamous publication, are bankrupt. Therefore, they are not in a position to pay any damages that one might recover. But the distributors of that publication are in such a position. I want them to be in no doubt whatever that whether they be milk bars, butcher shops, newsagencies, supermarkets or whatever, I will do, on the next defamation of me, exactly what Mr Costigan has done. I hope that the editor of News Weekly will either apologise appropriately or produce the evidence, or that publication will also be called to account. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(1.54) —My grievance today is for the people of the Island of Sri Lanka. I grieve especially for the Tamil community but, indeed, I grieve for all the people of the beautiful island for violence inflicts its wounds on those who are the targets of violence as well as those who perpetrate it. There has been a long history of communal violence in Sri Lanka. The number of lives lost or the scale of destruction of property have not held the attention of the media in this country for very long. Part of the reason for this lack of interest is the way in which the outbreaks are covered. They have been reported, whenever this was possible, using local news sources, tourist accounts and the censored writings of a handful of foreign correspondents. These reports have not been distinguished by detailed investigation of causes, confirmation of the facts by independent inquiry or any of the other qualities that Western journalism has aspired to in recent decades. Sri Lanka has experienced many episodes of blood baths. There was a blood bath in 1958, 1965, 1971, 1977 and 1981. In July 1983 the Tamils in Sri Lanka were victims of the worst violence ever seen in the history of that country. In just over one week hundreds of Tamils were killed and tens of thousands made homeless . Homes and business establishments belonging to Tamils were burnt to the ground . Tamil political prisoners in maximum security gaols were massacred, innocent Tamil civilians-men, women and children alike-were indiscriminately killed by racist hooligans including Sinhala police and Army personnel. Today the same Government which stood by when Sinhalese mobs took knives and torches to their Tamil neighbours is once again not only allowing passions to rise but also allowing Tamils to be murdered. As a student of international law I recognise the domestic jurisdiction principle. Article 2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations charter I support, but no country, I suggest, can stand by and say nothing while genocide is carried out against a minority in a country. The question of the so-called terrorist is often raised. I refer here to the so-called Tamil tigers. I condemn violence wherever it occurs but let us get this matter into perspective. The tigers are a group of only a couple of hundred young people. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that if you had seen members of your own family raped and murdered and your homes burned you too would probably become a freedom fighter. Of course, the Sri Lankan Government regards every young Tamil as a terrorist. It arrests them just on suspicion and many have died mysteriously in detention. If the Tamils engage in some form of civil disobedience the Army goes beserk, entering Tamil areas, shooting into houses, burning houses and, in general, acting as an undisciplined mob. There have been many outrages against human rights in Sri Lanka and, unfortunately, time does not permit me to go into the many documented details I have in my possession but I draw this House's attention to one episode that happened last year when 53 political detainees were massacred in prison. It hardly rated a mention in our local media. On 26 July, the day after the killings, the Government stated that several hundred prisoners in the gaol, including reconvicted criminals, defying orders from prison officers broke into the wards of detainees under the terrorism law, including those convicted, and attacked them. In the clash that ensued, 35 detainees and prisoners died. It said that an inquiry would be held into the deaths. An inquiry was held on 26 July returning verdicts of homicide in all cases and directing the officer-in- charge to conduct further investigation. That outcome is unknown. But despite this official investigation, the very next day on 27 July, Tamil detainees were subject to a second attack and a further 18 were killed. Mr Speaker, I ask you, how could prisoners in a maximum security gaol, break into another part of the gaol, armed with knives and other such things and cause the death of 53 innocent people? It really takes some believing that this could happen. Time does not permit me to go into all the details but I am particularly concerned at what is happening in the Jaffna area in the north of Sri Lanka where more communal violence is going on. At this stage, I commend the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) for his sympathetic response on behalf of the Hawke Labor Government to the plight of the detainees and the refugees caused by this communal violence last year. I personally saw the Minister, as I know other members did. We received a very sympathetic hearing and, of course, Australia took many of the refugees from this communal violence. I believe, as I said before, that despite Article 2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations charter, Australia has a role in regard to what is going on in Sri Lanka . We cannot stand idly by and see genocide being committed in this country. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security to the Prime Minister's statement that the principle of the assets test legislation remains and ask: Why does the Government persist with piecemeal approaches to retirement incomes such as would be involved in the introduction of the assets test when a large number of community groups, including even the Australian Council of Trade Unions, are calling for a coherent, non- discriminatory approach to the treatment of retirement incomes? Dr BLEWETT —First of all let me say that the Government has a comprehensive program in relation to retirement incomes; we are not thinking simply of the assets test. Legislation is already before this House relating to superannuation payments, which is another part of-- Mr Peacock —That is another slug, an absolute slug. Dr BLEWETT —The question that was asked was whether the Government had a comprehensive policy. I am simply trying to answer that question for the Leader of the Opposition. We have considerations in relation to annuities as well as the assets test. So there is a range of proposals here. The answer to the honourable member's question is that there is a comprehensive policy. As I pointed out to the House quite clearly yesterday, in any comprehensive strategy to redirect resources to those in need an assets test is a key element of that strategy. Mr CROSS —Is the Minister for Health aware of a Press statement released by the honourable member for Barker on 27 May alleging that the Federal Government had drastically reduced funding for the national trachoma eye health program? Has the Government reduced funding for this vital and important program? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Brisbane for that question. Happily , I have a copy of the Press release referred to. It is basically a tirade about government spending on the national trachoma eye health program. I do not think we need to worry about the tirade from the honourable member for Barker but the tirade is based on three statements. Each of those statements which he has made is wrong. Let me just take the three of them. First of all, he makes this astounding statement: The Federal Government has been condemned for reducing funding for the National Trachoma Eye Health Program for the second successive year . . . I know that Opposition members may think that this Government has been in office for a long time but, as yet, there has been only one financial year for this Government. So the notion that somehow we are reducing funding in a second successive year when we have had only one Budget is the first error. Secondly, the honourable member for Barker says, to praise the previous Government, that the coalition provided $1.8m in the 1982-83 financial year for this program. First of all, he has the figure wrong. It was $1.08m, a difference of $720,000 or nearly 70 per cent. The second thing he has got wrong, which he never owns up to, is that that was purely an estimate. It was not what the Liberal Government spent in its last 12 months. What the Liberal Government managed to spend was $ 531,200. That is the second statement that is wrong. The third and only other statement in this document is that we have allocated only $353,000 for this program. The honourable member for Barker was told, as an act of courtesy by my office on 30 April this year, that the estimate was $700,000. We had already spent $539 ,000 by 30 April. This Government has already spent more in one year than the Liberals have spent. We will get very close to spending the whole $700,000. Let me suggest to members of the media that, whenever they get a Press statement from the honourable member for Barker, they should divide by half any claim he makes about the former Liberal Government and double any minimisation he makes of the Labor Government's programs. Having dealt with this complete and total fabrication let me say that I would not want to pretend that all is well with the national trachoma eye health program. First of all, as I think the honourable member for Mackellar would realise, we inherited a bureaucratic nightmare in this scheme. It was in fact an institutionalised form of conflict that the previous Government had designed. Even at the time we came to office the scheme had already broken down in Western Australia. Since that date the Royal College of Opthalmologists has withdrawn from the scheme. I am not pretending that it is working satisfactorily. But what the Government has done is appoint a task force. I have had that task force report for about four or five weeks. In the next financial year we will follow the major proposals of that task force to ensure a scheme which is both cost efficient and responsive to Aboriginal aspirations. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to his statement in his 1983-84 Budget Speech which reads: There is evidence of extensive and increasing avoidance of the pension income test by people who do not need the pension. One reason for this was the removal of the assets test in 1976. I also refer in contrast to the statement made on page 35 of the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel report that, in the course of its deliberations, the Panel had not uncovered hard evidence of the extent or magnitude of avoidance although some particular cases have been drawn to its attention, as has the increased availability of investment advice. I ask the Treasurer: Did he or his Department provide the Gruen inquiry with the evidence that would justify the statement in his Budget Speech? If so, will he now concede that the Gruen inquiry statement implies that the Treasurer misled the House in his Budget Speech? If the information referred to was not provided by the Treasurer to the Gruen inquiry, why not? Will the Treasurer now make it available to the House so that its validity can be checked? Mr KEATING —It is drawing a very long bow to suggest that there is a difference of opinion on the question of whether I have misled the Parliament or attempted to mislead the Parliament on a matter like this. I am not certain, without inquiring, what information was tendered to the Gruen inquiry by the Department of the Treasury. I can find out. If the honourable gentleman wants to know I will let him know. Mr Peacock —You can see the contrast in the statements made by you and the inquiry. Mr KEATING —You have been into the dye pot again, Andrew. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister should be asked to withdraw. That is a disgraceful and unnecessary statement. He has got the Prime Minister getting under the drier-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEATING —It was only with the advantage of this proximity that it became apparent to me. I suppose that the honourable gentleman's hair, like his intellect, will recede into darkness. Mr SAUNDERSON —Can the Minister for Aviation assure the House that reported deficiencies in equipment and staffing within the Bureau of Meteorology will not lead to any reduction in the high level of aviation safety in Australia? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. I assure him that the people of Australia can continue to have confidence in the safety of the Australian aviation system which has one of the finest records in the world. I listened with very considerable interest to the remarks in the House yesterday of my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology on the relationship between aviation safety and meteorological forecasting and I think it would be helpful if I were to provide some supplementary information on these matters. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has established standards to be met by meteorological forecasts for civil aviation. By agreement between the Department of Aviation and the Bureau of Meteorology, the latter is responsible for providing forecasts in accordance with these internationally agreed standards. The Department of Aviation is responsible for determining the conditions for the safe conduct of flights in Australia, taking account of meteorological forecasting standards among other things. Where, for any reason, the Bureau considers it is unable to provide forecasts to the agreed standards, the Department of Aviation imposes compensating additional controls over flight operations. These include, for example, requiring aircraft to carry additional fuel to allow them to divert to alternative airports if necessary; directing aircraft to divert from planned routes or land at the nearest suitable airport; or directing that aircraft not operate at all. The imposition of these compensating additional controls may mean that aircraft would then be unable to operate to the timetable or route originally scheduled and there may be economic penalties to the operator of the flight. However, these penalties are more than offset by the maintenance of the normal high safety standards under which the Australian aviation industry operates and which the public has a right to expect. My colleague the Minister for Science and Technology, told the House yesterday of his concern that the Bureau of Meteorology may be unable to continue to provide an adequate level of service. Should that occur the House should be assured that aviation safety would not be jeopardised, for the reasons that I have outlined. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. In view of the pessimistic outlook for maintaining our share of the Japanese beef quota market after the recent trade negotiations conducted by his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry, does the Minister now agree that he should have become actively involved in the round of negotiations when the Anthony-Okawara beef agreement expired on 31 March last year? Is he concerned that as Minister for Trade he has failed, for reasons that he should perhaps explain to the House, to maintain our quota share of the Japanese beef market of around 70 per cent as the Prime Minister claimed he had achieved during his Asian tour? What plans does the Minister for Trade have to become actively involved to maintain our promised share of the Japanese beef market under quota? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable gentleman would know negotiations for beef entry into Japan are conducted through officials of the Department of Trade. I think he would have the utmost confidence in them because they are the same officials who were conducting those negotiations when he was a member of the former Government. I am not aware that Mr Anthony went to Japan every time beef negotiations were conducted; in fact I very much doubt that he did. If he did the share of our beef market continually declined in the last decade. Let us be very clear about what the honourable member is talking about. It is very obvious that every year we get more of our beef into Japan; that is the position. However what confuses the honourable member-I want to put him at rest- is that he does not understand what market share means, whether it is the quantity or the percentage share. Admittedly we are getting less of the percentage share of the Japanese beef market and we have got less every year for the last six or seven years because the Americans have access to the beef market on what is called a grain fed, high quality beef basis. The significant thing about the former Government was that when the Americans entered into a bilateral arrangement with Japan under the multilateral trade negotiations, which provided for that discrimination against Australia, the former Minister for Primary Industry congratulated the Americans on entering into that arrangement. Obviously he did not understand that the MTN arrangement on a bilateral basis clearly gave the United States a preference in beef entry which we could not match because the MTN had allocated a quota on a grain fed basis and we did not have that sort of beef. I acknowledge that fact. The Government is objecting to its being discriminated against by Japan but Japan is taking refuge in the fact that it has that arrangement under the MTN, an arrangement which the former Government congratulated the Americans on having agreed to. Let us look at the history of the former Government. Having realised that the MTN was obviously opening a large door of entry for United States grain fed beef , surely the Government must have realised that it would not get the same sort of access. The point at issue now is that the Government is in a position that, whilst it exports more beef each year to Japan, it gets only a percentage of the total extra that has been given to the Americans on a grain fed basis. The Japanese say to us 'Of course, that is a matter of consumer preference in Japan' because their consumers-- Mr Hunt —It is not. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am telling the honourable member what the Japanese say. The point is this: The Japanese tell us that they allow that entry into Japan and that they did agree to that bilateral arrangement because their consumers wanted that grain fed, high quality beef. Mr Sinclair —I have no grain fed beef. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I accept the interjection. I think we can give the Japanese grain fed beef too. That is the position but the Government has never promoted it in the course of negotiations. Mr Sinclair —In 1976 we did. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the former Minister did it, he did it out of a vested interest, I suppose. Somebody says: 'Get out of the gutter'. It is not a question of being in the gutter; it is a question of having the knowledge of what the Japanese want and the ability to indicate that there is grain fed beef. Mr Peacock —He doesn't have any grain fed beef. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the right honourable member does not have any grain fed beef he will not be able to get into the market. There are grain fed beef producers in Australia who have been making recent representations on the basis of why cannot they be considered. However, the Government does face up to the arrangement which had already been entered into some time ago and it is now saying to the Japanese: 'You are discriminating against us because we want to try to get access to the grain fed beef market'. That is the Government's present case but it is not a very strong case because Australia does not produce a great quantity of grain fed beef as against chilled beef. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, as the honourable gentleman would understand has made representations to the Government. The Corporation would like to have a greater entry of chilled beef rather than what is called a lower priced manufactured beef into the Japanese market and that is where the present negotiations are being directed. Mr Hunt —When are you going to Japan? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —At this stage I do not think there is any need for me to go. My distinguished colleague the Minister for Primary Industry has already been there once and he is going back again. I cannot think of any better advocate than my colleague. I think this is a matter for the Government to discuss with the beef industry. If the industry feels there is discrimination and the Government says there is- the former Government never did, but it approved of the MTN as a satisfactory arrangement-the Government must suggest that the Japanese are discriminating against us, pursuant to an agreement that has already been entered into. That will make it somewhat difficult for us. However, if the beef industry thinks so, we are entitled to take the case to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on the basis that the Japanese are discriminating against us. We must weigh that against the fact that it will take some time to have the matter determined. We must weigh it in relation to the industry itself. If the honourable member thinks this is the way to go, perhaps he will be prepared to say that he does and whether it would affect future entry into Japan. Mr Hunt —I think you ought to go to Japan as Minister for Trade. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the honourable member's only refuge-to point a finger and say that I ought to do something. The point I am making is that the Opposition did nothing but lose the market. On the same basis the Opposition approved of a bilateral arrangement that guaranteed that our producers would be discriminated against. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of proposals by the Opposition, as part of its program of privatisation, to sell off the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation? What is the Government's reaction to this proposal? Mr HURFORD —I am aware of this threat. It is to be regretted by all thinking people in this country. The threat is nothing new; the Fraser Government held this threat over the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for about four years. The Fraser Government first of all made an announcement in July 1979. However, it had not got round to doing anything by March 1983, for very good reasons. Of course, this threat will be one that matters only if there are some unthinking people who believe that the Opposition will take over government within the next 10 years. Such people are hard to find, but there are some such people among the staff of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. That affects the morale of that organisation. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is a business enterprise which pays normal commercial charges and taxes as well as returning a regular dividend to government. A number of results would flow from the sale of the Corporation. The first one is a reduction of high ratio loans being insured, and thus the work of the building societies in particular would cease. It would result in a lessening of competition in the mortgage insurance market. It would lead to an increased premium rate in that market and thus a reduction of services. It would result in a setback in the development of a secondary mortgage market, which is very much an objective of this Government. In short, such a move would result in an adverse impact on home ownership in this country. Mr Tuckey —How? Mr HURFORD —If the honourable member wants me to go through the list of the results of selling the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation again, I am very keen to do so. The fact is that I have come to the conclusion that the honourable member's colleagues could not be as dull as he is. The honourable member does not have to take my word for it that this would have an adverse effect on the home ownership market. Mr Tuckey —I don't. Mr HURFORD —All right, so the honourable member does not. Therefore, let me read the list of people who support me. I instance the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies which, when I announced that the Government would not be selling the HLIC, stated that it was: . . . a positive initiative for the encouragement of home ownership. Is that good enough for the honourable member? If not, I can instance a few more . For example, the Trustee Companies of Australia stated: We applaud you on the Government's decision not to sell the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Also the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the Master Builders Federation of Australia and the Housing Industry Association have all supported the retention of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation in the government sector. Is that enough for the honourable member, or would he like me to go on? I see that it has sunk into even the honourable member by this stage. It is generally recognised by anybody interested in the housing sector that if the national Government got out of the ownership-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest to the Minister that, if he is so keen to debate the issue with me, he make a statement and he and I can debate it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HURFORD —I do not think the honourable member's colleagues would choose him to debate the issue. It is generally recognised that, if the Commonwealth got out of the ownership of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, government involvement in this area is so important that the States would have to take up the challenge instead. That merely drives home the stupidity-as represented by what I have quoted from the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies and others-of this aspect, as with so many other aspects, of the Opposition policy. In short, as I sum it up, this is a crazy move announced by ignorant people and against the interests of the community. Otherwise it is all right! Mr HOWARD —I address my question to the Prime Minister, in the wake of the Minister for Housing and Construction saying that this Government takes notice of industry associations. I refer the Prime Minister to a speech entitled 'The Labor Alternative', which he gave to the Australian Institute of Political Science in January 1983, when he was Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, and in which he said that one of the principal reasons a Labor government would repeal section 45D of the Trade Practices Act was that many employers had branded that legislation an industrial nuisance. In view of the fact that in the last two months the Business Council of Australia, the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of Australian Industry, as well as numerous individual business organisations, have called for the retention of section 45D, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of discharging his commitment to evenhanded government by reversing the Government' s decision to abandon one of the few effective sanctions against predatory union behaviour? Mr HAWKE —I welcome that question from the top parliamentary Liberal. I recommend to him that he read the whole of that speech that I made and also what I have had to say on other occasions about this matter. He will find, particularly if he consults with the organisations to which he referred, that I have listened intently to the concerns which they have understandably expressed to me about the possible difficulties they see if section 45D were removed from the trade practices legislation. Not only I, but also the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, have made it clear that-following the discussions that are going on concerning what should happen to this legislation-it will not be simply a matter of taking the section out of the legislation but consideration will be given to dealing with the sorts of issues which are involved in secondary boycotts in the area of legislation where it should always have been dealt with, that is, the Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration legislation. The attitude of the Labor Party has been consistent in believing that we should not clutter up the trade practices legislation with provisions more properly at home in other more relevant legislation. Mr PUNCH —Can the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment please advise the House of the situation with regard to recent Press reports to the effect that the Australian Bicentennial Authority has abandoned a First Fleet re-enactment as a major part of our celebration program, because of pressure from the Aboriginal community? Mr COHEN —I assure the House that there will be a First Fleet re-enactment, as there has been for years. We recognise that Aboriginal people do not see the arrival of the First Fleet as a cause for turning handsprings. Nevertheless, it represents the beginning of European civilisation in Australia. That is the starting point and that is the thing that we are celebrating in 1988. However, the Authority does not wish the bicentennial to be obsessively concerned with the First Fleet and its descendants but wants to ensure that all Australians who live here now should feel involved, whether they or their descendants arrived on 26 January 1788 or in 1984 and whether they came from Britain or Burma, Ireland or Indo-China. Right from the word go, since 1980, I have been involved as a director of the Bicentennial Authority. The question of a First Fleet re-enactment was raised. The question was on what scale should it be. In 1980, a study was done by Dr Pascoe which estimated the cost of building the Fleet at $16m. Later we rejected the proposal on the grounds that it was too much money to spend on one day. Mr Lusher —Well, what about a weekend? Mr COHEN —Nobody has a better idea of how to spend money in a short period than the honourable member. However, in view of the persistence of Jonathan King and company the Authority commissioned another inquiry under Sir Donald Trescowthick and the economic research unit which did a study which came up with the findings that to build a First Fleet would cost $18m and to lease it would cost $31m and that the sale of the ships afterwards would yield only $6m. So honourable members can see that the cost would be astronomical for a very small part of the celebrations. Mr Michael Edgley and company have talked about getting the money from the private sector. I believe that he has estimated a scaled down re- enactment as costing about $7m or $8m. The point is that the Bicentennial Authority realises that a certain amount of money for the Bicentennial will come from the private sector. If it endorses this project, that means that this is $ 7m or $8m it will not be able to get for a whole range of other activities which it is anxious to pursue for the Bicentennial. However, let me assure the House and Australia that there will be a First Fleet re-enactment-- Mr Coleman —Well, support it. Mr COHEN —We are supporting the re-enactment; we are not supporting the building of ships and a First Fleet coming from all over the world. We are saying that there will be a re-enactment, but not of the scale that some people would like it to be. Mr STEELE HALL —Has the Special Minister of State obtained a report about the information in today's Age newspaper concerning the discovery of a huge drug racket in Queensland? Is it a fact that the drug distribution centre referred to in the Age is located at Noosa in Queensland? Is the Minister aware that there are inadequate numbers of police and Customs officers at Noosa to deal with this situation? Is it a fact that effective investigation into this drug racket has been made possible only because of assistance from officers of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union? Will the termination of the Costigan Commission affect the continuing investigation of this drug ring? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Boothby directed a number of questions to me. Firstly, let me say, no, I have not received a report on the matter referred to in the newspapers this morning. Secondly, in relation to the cut-off of the Costigan Commission, a lot of publicity has been given to the announcements that we have made that the National Crime Authority was to be established once the legislation was passed by both Houses. The timetable for that is, hopefully, by 1 July. By arrangement with Commissioner Costigan, he will be working for a month during the period of transition from the Costigan Commission, because it was seen as a total transfer of the Costigan and Stewart commissions to the National Crime Authority. For eight weeks following that month of transition, he , of course, will write his final report which will be presented to the Government and ultimately to the Parliament. There is in no way any inference by anyone or any authority that there would be interference with the Costigan Commission. I will get a report on the matter and make it available. Mr LEO McLEAY —Has the attention of the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to recent reports of the building of a $500m airport at Lefkoniko in the Turkish-occupied zone of Cyprus? Is the Minister aware that this proposed airport is only 20 kilometres from the occupied city of Famagusta? Does the Minister agree that the building of that airport will lead to increased tensions in Cyprus and a fear that the Turkish Government will not surrender any occupied territory in Cyprus? Will the Minister draw to the attention of both the Turkish Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers that Australia is concerned about this matter and that it may cause added tensions in Cyprus and fail to bring about success in the reunification talks that are currently proceeding regarding that troubled land? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am well aware of the continued interest the honourable member has in this matter because of the large number of Cypriots now resident in Australia. The tragic situation in Cyprus is a matter of concern to all Australian governments. I have not had the report drawn to my attention but I take note of what the honourable member said. I agree that if an airport is to be constructed on what is called the Turkish side it will do nothing to alleviate the problems of all the people of Cyprus. On 2 May, the United Nations Security Council convened to consider the Cyprus question. Australia voted in favour of a resolution which condemned the exchange of ambassadors between Turkey and the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I was in Cyprus in December, which confirmed for me what the honourable gentleman has said. There is a great deal of tension there because of the failure to resolve the current problem and the additional problems created by Mr Denktash declaring unilaterally that there was to be a Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The real issue that the United Nations obviously has to deal with is to get support from all parties to guarantee that the Turkish Army leaves Cyprus so that the problems of Cyprus can be settled by all the Cypriots who are there. The Government continues to support the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has the responsibility of continuing in what is called a good offices role in an endeavour to solve that problem. He indicated that he required the unambiguous support of all countries. If, as the question indicated , there is to be further development on one side which could lead to suspicions on the other side, one could well think that we are getting no closer to but in fact getting further away from a settlement. I assure the honourable gentleman that Australia will continue to do all in its power to bring about a just and lasting solution to the situation in Cyprus. The forerunner of that, of course, is the immediate withdrawal of all Turkish forces . Mr FISHER —I refer the Minister for Primary Industry to the critical problems being experienced by Australian dried fruit producers. Will the Minister respond urgently to submissions seeking underwriting, appropriate changes to the rural adjustment scheme, registration of plantings and the maintenance of adequate levels of import duties for the retention of the domestic market? Does the Minister recognise that the failure of the social security system to assist growers in financial stress is being reflected in family breakdown, health deterioration and low self-esteem? Mr KERIN —The honourable gentleman reflects on a very serious social situation, particularly in his electorate, which produces the majority of dried vine fruit in Australia. As he is aware, some of the new entrants into the industry find themselves in a particularly difficult situation because they bought in on a basis of high prices and are financed in by packers and banks. Because of the price of dried vine fruits and because of some imports they are now in a critical situation. I am sympathetic to the producers and to the concern that imports of fruit can injure the domestic industry. That matter is being looked at. A request for countervailing duty has been accepted and is being processed through the normal channels under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. As the honourable gentleman is aware, when delegations came to see me, the Minister for Social Security and I, in conjunction with the Victorian Government , saw what we could do to assist individuals. I think it is fair to say that the provision of household finance under the rural adjustment scheme is not adequate . However, every time I raise that with the States they prefer to use the rural adjustment scheme for the more usual goals of debt reconstruction and farm build -up rather than to get on to household finance. The Department of Social Security faces a particular problem with its criteria, inasmuch as people with assets who are carrying on a business are not eligible for unemployment benefits . They can be eligible for special benefits under certain circumstances. But it cannot be opened up much more, otherwise every small businessman in the same position would also be entitled to social security benefits. There is a conceptual problem. In terms of overall assistance to the industry, after a three-month inquiry including a public hearing at Mildura, for this season the Industries Assistance Commission recommended against the provision of assistance to the industry for 1984. However, the Government said that we would keep the industry situation under review, as we would have a clearer view of the financial situation after the 1984 harvest has ended. My Department is now gathering data on this aspect. Carry-on loans under the rural adjustment scheme might be possible. However, that will depend on evidence now available and agreement by producing States to join in funding loans. The part B option in the rural adjustment scheme will have to be taken up with the State Ministers involved, and I will raise it at the next Australian Agricultural Council meeting. But only potentially viable producers could qualify for such loans. Producers who are doubtful about their future should check their eligibility for adjustment assistance under the RAS through the State organisation. The IAC is continuing its inquiry into assistance in 1985 and subsequent seasons and it is to report to the Government in mid-September. By and large, what we are doing at present relates to trying to get evidence of the producers' financial situation for this season. I will take up the matter with the Government and the States as soon as possible. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of the statement made in this House yesterday by the Opposition spokesman on immigration that the Opposition no longer wishes to persist with the discriminatory policy of balance between ethnic and racial groups? What is the Government's response to this belated return to fairness by the Opposition? Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask you to rule the question out of order. I did not use those words. An examination of Hansard will prove it . It is a false question and it should be ruled out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is not for the Chair to judge the honourable member's statement. If the honourable member for Denison is offended, he will have the opportunity to correct the misrepresentation. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a further point of order. My second point of order is that that Minister is not, thank God, responsible for what I say. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. I call the Minister. Mr WEST —I point out to the House that, on 8 May, the Leader of the Opposition said that what I, as Minister, must do was to retain the present number of Asians already here and increase the number of Europeans and British to restore balance to the program. It should be pointed out to the House that if we were to retain the present numbers of Asian people coming to Australia this year- approximately 23,000-and then return to a so-called balance of approximately 23 per cent, which was the average figure for the last two years of the previous Government's term in office, we would be taking in excess of 100,000 people. I want the House to reflect upon the remarkable change that appeared to occur after I made my statement yesterday on the new intake for 1984-85. It now appears that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition spokesman are saying that they were not calling for balance on racial grounds, but were calling for a balance of the components-such as family reunion, business migration, skilled migration and so on-within the program. If that is their current attitude, the Government welcomes it, because we do not want them to be calling for racial balance in the program. But, of course, that is not what the Leader of the Opposition said on 8 May. He made a clear assertion that this Government was anti-British and that we should take more Europeans and British to redress the balance. Now that we have produced figures in this Parliament both several weeks ago and yesterday during the statement that I put down which outlined the intake for this year, the Opposition seeks to retreat and to resile from the position that it put several weeks ago. Further, there is no use in the Opposition pointing to the very moderate increase in skilled labour and business migration programs to which we have agreed-that is, only 3,000 people in the skilled labour program and 2,500 in the business migration program. It is no use members of the Opposition pointing to that as evidence of acceptance of their earlier advice, because that is not the position. The Government and I foreshadowed one year ago a very moderate increase in the skilled labour and business migration categories. I reiterated that position last March. I say simply that this moderate increase does not represent a response to the Opposition's ill-considered call for racial balance in the program; but it reflects our determination to introduce a new scheme for selecting skilled migrants-the occupational share system-and it reflects the economic upturn that has occurred under this Government. I conclude by saying that, despite what the Opposition may say or may call for, there will be no discrimination on racial or regional grounds in our migration programs. Mr Hawke —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. Mr Hodgman —Why won't you take a question as to when you are going to sack the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs before he does any further damage? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —The Prime Minister is a coward and a liar. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Hodgman —He is a liar, and the Minister is too. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —You are the greatest liar in the Australian Parliament. You are a pathological liar. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member. Mr Hodgman —You are a con man. You are a crook. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I name the honourable member for Denison. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for Denison be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.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. Adermann, A. E Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Peacock, A. S.Edwards, Harry Porter, J. R.Fife, W. C. Robinson, IanFisher, P. S. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.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. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Denison thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 39(3) of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982, I present the annual report of the operations of the Centre, together with financial statements for the year 1982-83. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) — Pursuant to section 48 of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983, I present the final report of the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority 1983-84. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the 118th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, held in Perth on 6 February 1984. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the Government's new policy on the car industry. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report on the operations of the registered medical benefits and hospitals benefits organisations for 1982-83. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Finance has sought my indulgence to add to an answer to a question given yesterday. I grant him that indulgence. Mr DAWKINS —Yesterday I answered two questions in relation to the growth of the Public Service. It is with some embarrassment that I realise that my recollection was a little faulty. One of the figures that I used was out by a factor of 0.2 per cent. For the record I table a document which clarifies the position. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Is the honourable member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I am, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member claims to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr GOODLUCK —I found the article by Mr Dorian Wild in the Sydney Daily Telegraph dated 31 May 1984, as per usual, most enjoyable. However, he referred to me as ' the diminutive former car salesman and champion of Cascade beer, Bruce Goodluck' . I do not have anything against used car salesmen. I have the greatest respect for them, but I was never one. Many of my New South Wales supporters and many of my colleagues here might like to know that I was a tyre company owner, a garage owner and proprietor and a National President of the Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, and I do like Cascade beer. Mr PORTER(Barker) —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PORTER —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may make a personal explanation. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. During Question Time today the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) made a number of allegations in relation to a Press statement I released over the weekend concerning this Government's spending of funds on the national trachoma program. Firstly he said that I had indicated that the previous Government had allocated $l.08m, not $l.8m, to this program. In that respect he is quite right. There has been an error in transcription and I am certainly man enough to admit that. Mr Griffiths —You admitted you wrote lies. Therefore you are a liar. Mr PORTER —It is just a pity that some honourable members opposite do not own up to their mistakes. In every other respect the Minister was dead wrong. He said that I had suggested that the previous Government had spent that money. That is totally incorrect. The actual funds spent on the national trachoma program in the financial year l982-83 totalled about $531,000. The Minister suggested that I was in error in suggesting that that $1m-odd had been spent on the program by the previous Government. I did not suggest that. There is no way that we could have spent that money because honourable members opposite were in government at the time. The election was in March. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is entitled to make a personal explanation as to where he has been misrepresented but not to extend his explanation into debate. Mr PORTER —I think you will understand, Mr Speaker-- Mr MacKellar —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Maribyrnong used the phrase that the honourable member for Barker had been caught out as a liar. I ask you to ask him to withdraw that remark. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Maribyrnong made that statement- I did not hear it-he should withdraw it. Mr Griffiths —I withdraw. I was not referring to the smuggler. MR SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member needs only to withdraw. Mr Goodluck —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard the honourable member for Maribyrnong yesterday use the word 'smuggler'. He said it again today. If honourable members opposite want to go-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr PORTER —The first point I was making is that the Minister misrepresented the statement I had made in the Press release. The second point of misrepresentation by the Minister was his suggestion that I had wrongly cited the amount of money allocated by the Government to the national trachoma program. The Government had budgeted for an allocation of $1m. The Budget allocation has been reduced to $ 700,000. My Press release reads: The Labor Government this year has allocated only $353,000 to the State and Territory committees administering the NTEHP. That refers to the national trachoma and eye health program. That figure of $353 ,000 comes from information provided by the Minister in a letter to me. The letter is dated 30 April 1984. It reads: . . . at this stage the funding provided to the individual State/Territory Committees is as follows: The Minister then lists the States and the amounts provided, and the total is $ 353,000, which is exactly the figure I cited in my Press release. The Minister misrepresented my Press release. Dr Blewett —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the honourable member to table the letter. Mr PORTER —I would be delighted to table the letter. I seek leave to table it. Leave granted. Mr PORTER —The point of the Press release was to draw attention to-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has the indulgence of the Chair to correct the matter in relation to which he has been misrepresented, not to deal with the point of the Press release. Dr Blewett —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was about to make the same point upon which you have just ruled. I ask that the Press release be tabled. I am quite prepared for the House to make a judgment on the matter. Mr PORTER —Certainly. I seek leave to table the Press release. Leave granted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should conclude stating the point on which he has been misrepresented. Mr PORTER —I trust all honourable members will read that Press release because it reflects the serious concern of the Aboriginal community regarding the fact that the Government is not addressing the real needs of the Aboriginal community and that funding for the trachoma program has been reduced. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker was defying the Chair in continuing with his argument, but I see that he has now resumed his seat. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr FISHER —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr FISHER —In the early hours of this morning during the debate on education, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) accused me of misrepresenting his remarks concerning the Ferntree Gully High School which is located in his electorate. Upon reading Hansard, I find that I owe the honourable member an apology. He was in fact supporting the school in his remarks but was critical of parents who had withdrawn their children from the school because they were disappointed with the school curriculum. I suggest to the honourable member that that is a clear example of freedom of choice, with which I entirely agree. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report by the Australian Science and Technology Council-ASTEC-on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. I seek leave to make a statement in respect of the report. Leave granted. Mr HAWKE —Following the Government's examination of policy in relation to the export of Australian uranium last year, I wrote to the Chairman of Australian Science and Technology Council, Professor Ralph Slatyer, on 9 November 1983, requesting that ASTEC undertake an inquiry, under his personal direction, into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. The inquiry was asked to examine in particular Australia's nuclear safeguards arrangements, giving particular attention to the effectiveness of the bilateral and multilateral agreements, and to the scope for strengthening these agreements; the opportunities for Australia through the conditions of its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle to further advance the cause of nuclear non-proliferation, having regard to the policies and practices of recipient countries; and the adequacy of existing technology for the handling and disposal of waste products by consuming countries, and the ways in which Australia can further contribute to the development of safe disposal methods. The Council was subsequently requested to include some consideration of the issues raised by the possible extraction of thorium for nuclear use from Australian mineral sands containing the mineral monazite. The Slatyer inquiry was an integral part of the Government's uranium policy decisions announced last November. At that time the Government decided that, firstly, the Roxby Downs Joint Venturers be advised that if a commercial decision to proceed with the development of Roxby Downs were to be made by them, the Government would permit the export of uranium produced from that mine, and the export of the uranium would be subject to whatever safeguards arrangements applied generally to uranium exports at the time of export; secondly, with the exception of Roxby Downs if commercially feasible, the Government not permit the development of any new uranium mines; and, thirdly, all future exports of Australia's uranium-under both existing and any future contracts-be made subject to the most stringent supply conditions, such conditions to be determined by the Government following an inquiry into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. In setting up the inquiry, the Government considered it to be important that there should be an independent and objective audit of policies and practices in regard to Australia's uranium exports to ensure that they contributed to and strengthened Australia's pursuit of its disarmament and non-proliferation objectives. The Government also sought a scientific assessment of the adequacy of ways in which countries managed and disposed of radioactive waste. ASTEC, as the pre-eminent council providing independent advice to the Government on science and technology questions, was judged best qualified to perform this role under the personal direction of Professor Slatyer. The terms of reference for the inquiry focused primarily on the issues of non-proliferation, safeguards and waste management, both because of their intrinsic importance, and because they are of particular concern in the community in relation to Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. The final report reflects a broad interpretation of the terms of reference, and provides a comprehensive identification of the elements of the fuel cycle and the issues which they raise for the export of Australian uranium. The report indicates that, while the percentage of world electricity requirements which will be generated by nuclear means cannot be forecast precisely, no new energy source is likely to have a significant impact for the next quarter century. Accordingly the report notes that the world can be expected to rely largely on coal and nuclear energy, supplemented by oil, to provide the major part of its electricity requirements for this period. This would be the case even if Australia were not to export its uranium. The report notes that there is no shortage of uranium in the world to supply fuel to the nuclear power industry, and points out that the future development of the nuclear power industry will not be dependent on Australian uranium, and will proceed irrespective of whether or not Australia is a supplier. The report suggests that, if international tensions are to be reduced and the prospects of a peaceful global environment enhanced, the importance of national and international energy security cannot be overemphasised. It notes that disruptions in the supply of resources of any sort have been a cause of international tension and, through human history, have led to war. The report points out that countries which do not have indigenous energy resources are most concerned to ensure reliability of supplies and, to this end, place great emphasis on diversity of supplies and the political stability of supplier countries. For this reason many countries have turned to nuclear energy for electricity generation out of concern about reliability of oil supplies both in the short and long term. The inquiry has concluded that Australia, through being a reliable, long term supplier of uranium, is in a position to contribute significantly to international energy security. Further, the report brings out that assurance of reliable long term supplies of uranium at reasonable prices will also reduce the motivation for individual countries to seek greater energy security by carrying out more steps of the fuel cycle, particularly reprocessing, within national boundaries. Against this background the report concludes that Australia will best be able to make a significant contribution to non-proliferation and world peace if it is actively involved in the nuclear fuel cycle. By involvement of this kind, the report argues, Australia will be able to make a direct contribution to the development of the civil nuclear fuel cycle in ways that will increase global energy security, strengthen the elements of the non-proliferation regime and reduce the risks of misuse of civil facilities and the diversion of nuclear materials from civil to military uses. Without such involvement, global energy security would be less assured, and Australia's ability to strengthen the non- proliferation regime and to influence future developments in the fuel cycle would be reduced. The report expresses the concern that we must all share that the prevention of nuclear war is of the greatest importance to all humanity. A major component of global efforts to prevent such a war is prevention of further proliferation of nuclear weapons, either by an increase in the size of the arsenals of those countries which already have such weapons, referred to as vertical proliferation , or by an increase in the number of countries with such weapons or which have exploded nuclear devices, referred to as horizontal proliferation. The report recognises that, since nuclear fission not only provides power for electricity generation but also constitutes the explosive source of weapons, it is understandable that there should be widespread public concern about the degree to which civil nuclear activities could contribute to the development of nuclear weapons. In this regard the inquiry makes a number of points. The great majority of the countries of the world have found compelling reasons for not building nuclear weapons and have given a commitment not to do so by becoming members of the Non- Proliferation Treaty. They have also accepted safeguards on all their nuclear facilities so that their commitment to non-proliferation can be verified. The report points out that if a decision is taken by a country to develop nuclear weapons this can be achieved, provided that the country has sufficient determination and a reasonable scientific and technological infrastructure. The absence of a civil nuclear industry would not prevent such a development, although the procedure would be more difficult and slower. But the report suggests that, should a country decide to embark on a weapons program, it is unlikely to use a civil power reactor to do so, as this would be inefficient both in terms of producing weapons usable material and in terms of electricity generation. The report concludes that the task for all countries is to create an international political climate in which actions leading to the growth of the arsenals of nuclear weapons states, and the extension of a nuclear capability to so-called 'threshold' countries, are not taken. In this regard the report focuses on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as the most important multilateral non- proliferation and arms control agreement in existence-a view which this Government strongly supports and will continue to in multilateral form, and in our discussions with other nations on non-proliferation and arms control matters . The report makes a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening adherence to the Treaty. In particular it notes that continued support by many countries will depend upon the fulfilment of the three-way bargain contained in the Treaty . This involves a pledge by non-nuclear weapon states neither to manufacture nor to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept verification of this, a commitment by all parties to pursue nuclear disarmament, and an undertaking to provide access by members to nuclear items for peaceful purposes. In this latter regard, the report refers to the importance of Article IV of the Treaty, which affirms the right of all countries to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It also requires those countries in a position to do so to contribute to the further development of nuclear energy in member countries. At a more fundamental level the report highlights the necessity not just of maintaining the non-proliferation regime but of demonstrating that the obligations contained in the Treaty are being met. In this regard, the significance of the forthcoming 1985 NPT Review Conference is emphasised as is the need to register some positive achievements in the field of disarmament before the future of the Treaty is decided in 1995. The Government has stressed on a number of occasions and reaffirms the fundamental importance it attaches to the role of the Review Conference to the future of the NPT. Among the Government 's more important initiatives in support of an effective non-proliferation regime has been our backing for a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. The reports sees this as contributing to the international non-proliferation regime in a substantial region, as well as responding to the fears of small island states in the region about the future conservation and use of their major resource, the ocean. There can be no doubt that the issues of disarmament and non-proliferation are among the most important of our time. It is the international community's ability to deal with them effectively which will determine our future. It is particularly important that we be clear-sighted in our thinking on the issues involved. The report notes that two key arguments have been put forward opposing Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. It has, for example, been suggested that the solution to the problems of nuclear proliferation is for the world to forgo the use of nuclear energy, and for countries such as Australia to take a lead by withholding supply of uranium. The report rejects this suggestion , observing that the use of nuclear energy is an established fact of life, and that Australia's withdrawal would not affect the decisions that countries have made and will make to use nuclear energy. A second line of argument is that, by supplying uranium to nuclear weapon states, Australia might be freeing up uranium for use in weapons. The report also rejects this argument, drawing attention to the fact that those states already have adequate supplies of uranium and are not assisted in any way by the supply of Australian uranium. Put more bluntly, the report concludes that denial of supply to nuclear weapon states would not affect in any way their weapons programs. On the basis of these and other related considerations, the report concludes that there are more practical measures that Australia can take to assist the cause of non-proliferation than by withholding the supply the uranium. Principally these go to the strengthening of the existing non-proliferation regime. Proposals made by the report in this regard will be addressed by the Government in the near future. The report also thoroughly considers the issues involved in waste management and disposal. It judges it to be absolutely necessary for countries to adopt high standards and to ensure that the best practicable waste disposal technology is employed. The report advocates an approach which involves containing and isolating the source of radioactivity as far as possible. The most effective way to put such an approach into practice is seen to be the confinement of the radioactive wastes in a stable waste form, and to isolate the waste form from the environment by additional barriers. Proven methods are identified for handling waste with low and intermediate levels of radioactivity. The report, however, expresses reservations about the dumping of radioactive waste in the oceans, noting that, while this may be a safe procedure, much further work remains to be done before any final judgment can be made. In the meantime, the report urges Australian support for a continuation of the present moratorium on ocean dumping. For high level waste, the report notes that investigations in progress, the level of technical knowledge attained and the progress of programs of site investigation provide confidence that safe disposal of high level waste can be undertaken. The results of theoretical assessments of geological repositories provide additional confidence that safe disposal of appropriately packaged waste is possible using existing technology, provided that the best practicable technology is used at each stage and that an optimum geological repository is used. Under these circumstances, the report considers that any return of radioactivity to the biosphere can be held to safe and acceptable levels over long periods-up to one million years-so that maximum doses to the most exposed individuals would be a small fraction of natural background levels. It considers, moreover, that the technology required to achieve these objectives is available. The report notes the contribution which Australia can make to research and development in the area of waste disposal and recommends continued involvement in this important work. Attention is drawn particularly to the potential significance of the Australian-developed waste form Synroc and it is recommended that work on Synroc be continued. If the promise which Synroc appears to hold is demonstrated by further research, the report concludes that its adoption by other countries should be pursued. At this stage I should like to thank Professor Slatyer-may I say that Professor Slatyer is with us in the House today-the members of the inquiry and ASTEC staff for the production of a comprehensive, thoroughly professional report. It should become the standard technical reference for those seeking an understanding of the issues involved in this complex and critically important subject, on which a range of views are held within the Australian community and indeed within the Australian Labor Party. My judgment and indeed my hope would be that it will further enhance the more rational and reasoned discussion of nuclear issues which has emerged in recent months. The Government will give careful consideration to the ASTEC recommendations, and as decisions are made Ministers will advise the Parliament. I commend the report to the House. I present the following paper: Nuclear Fuel Cycle-Ministerial Statement, 31 May 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 20 minutes. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.27) —The Opposition welcomes the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. It is a comprehensive and clear-headed statement on this important issue. Of course, it makes an absolute mockery of the Australian Labor Party's selective uranium policy. It underlines the need for change in the policy at the forthcoming Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party. Let me say here and now that the Opposition gives the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) full support in his endeavours to adopt our policy towards the mining and export of uranium, for that is what is involved-the adoption of the policy of the previous Government and the current Opposition on the mining and export of uranium. We want the Government to join us in a bipartisan approach on this important issue. I am sure that, with the degree of work that is being done buying off the Left, that can be achieved. The problems involved in nuclear energy and nuclear weapons should be seen as practical problems requiring practical solutions. It is, therefore, pleasing that the Council has followed the example of its distinguished predecessors in presenting a realistic report which reflects the current international environment. This report is a valuable work which complements the monumental report which flowed from the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry undertaken by Mr Justice Fox. When we were in government, the coalition recognised that the process of strengthening and improving international safeguards and arrangements was a continuing one. Nuclear policy and safeguard arrangements should always be kept closely under review to take account of the evolution of international thinking on safeguards. No decision in Australia's political history was preceded by more careful and thorough deliberation than the decision by those of us now on this side of the Parliament to develop and export Australia's uranium resources when we were in government. I urge those who hold contrary views within the Government to adopt the policy pursued by us both in government and in opposition. The fact that so much consideration was given to our adoption of the mining and export of uranium and the clear and rational policies that flowed from that determination is clearly recognised in the Slatyer report. Firstly, we based our decision on authoritative predictions of a serious long term world energy problem in which it will be necessary to rely largely on coal and nuclear energy supplemented by oil. Secondly, we based our decision on our international obligations with regard to nuclear non-proliferation. To this end the coalition Government initiated the most comprehensive and stringent safeguards policy adopted by any country in the world. I say it with a degree of pride because I was Foreign Minister at the time when we were implementing those most stringent safeguards. It was designed to promote universal adherence to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Our policy offered a tangible reward: Access to Australian uranium for those countries which renounced nuclear weapons by becoming parties to the Treaty. Equally, our policy offered a tangible incentive to non-parties to adhere to the Treaty. Thirdly, it was our conviction that, given these circumstances, a failure to mine and export uranium would deprive Australia of a major competitive industry to no rational end. As I have said, the report agrees with that. In accepting the valid, commercial considerations we did not accept that these should be balanced against the safeguards policy. We viewed adequate safeguards as a fundamental prerequisite of any uranium exports. The essential ingredients of the policy the coalition implemented were the careful selection of customer countries; the application of international safeguards to verify that material supplied for peaceful purposes was not misused; the establishment of additional safeguards through bilateral arrangements; and an active involvement by Australia in international efforts to upgrade safeguards. On page 158 the Slatyer report sets out in detail the relevant elements of our nuclear safeguards policy that we announced on 24 May 1977. Mr Hunt —Very comprehensive. Mr PEACOCK —It was extremely comprehensive. As I have said, there could not have been any more thorough consideration of a policy decision by any government than what we did in this area. Let us now look at what the Slatyer report has to say on this whole subject. It sensibly notes the substantial role nuclear energy plays as an energy source. It points out that this would be the case even if Australia were not to export its uranium. It points out that disruptions in resource supplies of any sort have been a cause of international tension and, indeed, often war. It concludes that Australia, through being a reliable, long term supplier of uranium, is in a position to contribute significantly to international energy security. It makes great play of the need for us to be a reliable, long term supplier of uranium and the benefits this will have on world peace. I will return to this point in a little while. The report expresses the concern, with which honourable members on this side of the House would agree unequivocally, that the prevention of nuclear war is of the greatest importance to all humanity. Nuclear disarmament and the avoidance of nuclear war is rightly the preoccupation of this generation of young people today. Here again the report makes an important contribution. It reaffirms the importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the need for us to honour our international responsibilities under that Treaty. That Treaty represents an implicit covenant between those nations with nuclear weapons and those without, an undertaking by the nuclear powers that they will pursue in good faith negotiations on arms control and on limiting the spread of their weapons technology, and an undertaking by other states that they will forgo the military use of nuclear energy in return for the benefits of its peaceful use in fields such as energy, medicine or agriculture. The report refers to the importance of Article IV of the Treaty. This affirms the right of all countries to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Mr Jacobi —That is critical. Mr PEACOCK —It is absolutely essential; I stress the importance of that. As I have said, it affirms that right as long as nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, written into that critical Article-Article IV. It also requires those countries, if they are in a position to do so, to contribute to the further development of nuclear energy in member countries. That is a requirement. I commend this advice to the Australian Labor Party. I recommend that the report be compulsory reading for all its members, as indeed was implied in the closing statements of the Prime Minister. Regardless of preconceived notions and prejudices, this report plausibly argues for the strengthening of Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. I noted with particular interest the attention the report pays to the 1985 Non- Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the recommendations aimed at strengthening adherence to the Treaty. We believe that action needs to be taken to strengthen the Treaty. Although it has been signed by some 119 nations a number of key states remain aloof, including several with the capacity now, or the potential, to develop their own nuclear arms. Our policy should be to encourage the five nuclear weapons states to strengthen their side of the non- proliferation commitment so that countries such as Australia, with a distinguished record in disarmament matters, can more effectively bring common sense to bear on those which have not yet signed. Doubtless we will need to increase the incentives for Third World states to forgo nuclear weapons. As such, there will have to be a direct linkage between disarmament and development; I do not run away from that necessity. Our influence in this process can be significant if we can balance our established diplomatic credentials in the disarmament field with the reputation of a stable and reliable supplier of uranium under the strictest of safeguards. The coalition has consistently maintained this stance, as I have indicated, both in government and in opposition. I also note the report's realistic comments that the development of nuclear weapons can be achieved in the absence of a civil nuclear industry and that, should a country decide to embark upon a weapons program, it is unlikely to use a civil power reactor to do so. The thrust of this whole report is crystal clear. It firmly recommends: That exports of Australian uranium should not be limited as a matter of principle but should be permitted subject to stringent conditions of supply designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. We agree entirely. In welcoming the report we, on this side of the House, must nevertheless point to what we perceive in the report as problems in its recommendations for a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. There have been three levels of concern in the South Pacific: Firstly, the decision of France to continue nuclear testing in the Pacific; secondly, the proposals to dump radioactive waste in the Pacific; and, thirdly, the expressions of concern about nuclear powered or nuclear armed naval movements in the South Pacific. These concerns are important to governments that consider themselves custodians of one of the great oceans of the world. It is a job of governments to be sensitive to them and to work carefully toward the resolution and dissipation of these fears. The key question, though, is the strategic effects flowing from the application of a nuclear weapons free zone policy. The crucial ingredients affecting strategic responses are political. What will be the consequential effects of the political movement in the Pacific seeking a ban on the movement of nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships? This question is not asked by the scientists because, with great respect to them, it is not within their competence, as a body, to pose the question or, more particularly, to answer it. This is appropriately the responsibility of the Government's defence and foreign affairs advisers. What is the nature of their advice to the Government on this question? It is clear that the Government will seek to use the authority of this report to seek endorsement for its preconceived views that a nuclear free zone be established in the Pacific. The report places great emphasis on the Tlatelolco treaty. It fails to observe, however, that the main stimulus for that treaty was the attempt by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to install weapons in Cuba. That treaty was a response to that move and this gave the treaty considerable local meaning and content. We know that when the Government's nuclear free zone proposal was put to the South Pacific Forum significant island leaders considered the proposal meaningless. They were asked to undertake not to acquire or to allow nuclear weapons to be installed in their territories. They obviously considered it inconceivable that they would have such intentions. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that this dissatisfaction could issue into a greater reception being given to the political drive in the region to ban the movement of nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships, and that is not in the interests of Australia. I believe the Slatyer report has in this instance moved, with great respect, into areas beyond its competence. I commend to the Government its own endorsed strategic basis paper which puts a contrary view, with respect, to the report on this issue. The strategic basis report-I remind the House that the report, leaked or not, was endorsed by the Government-stated: We can assist the island states to develop a more considered approach to nuclear questions. It argued that we should draw their attention to the practical difficulties of verification and enforcement and the need to exempt vehicles in transit. Frankly , the nuclear free zone proposal in the South Pacific will not work and if it is to impede nuclear powered vessels it calls into question the ANZUS Treaty. Let me return to the report's theme and the principal recommendation about the importance of being a reliable supplier of uranium. It is a great tragedy that emotive issues have been allowed by the current Government to stand in the way of proper industry development. That, I hope, is changing now with the form of endorsement that can be read between the lines in the Prime Minister's statement today because the emotive issues that have been allowed to stand in the way of proper industry development have placed in some jeopardy Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier of uranium. The report before the House spells out a clear message to this Government that it must approve the mining and export of uranium as a matter of urgency. It must do so without the previous signs of bias it has shown towards what it regards as politically favourable centres to receive mining approval. It would be the Opposition's hope that this report puts some rational thinking into the heads of those members of the Labor Party who are responsible for its current illogical, emotional uranium policy. It is a policy which says that there are two kinds of uranium in this country. There is good uranium at Roxby Downs while the higher grade uranium at Ranger and Nabarlek is not too bad; but at all the other places in Australia it is bad. Mr Hunt —What an idiotic policy. Mr PEACOCK —It is absolutely idiotic and the inability of the Labor Party to date to accept a reasoned, coherent uranium policy has already cost this nation heavily in terms of export income, economic growth, jobs and international reputation. The longer the Labor Party vacillates, the worse Australia's position will become. The failure to allow Australia to compete fully on the world market and the failure to support that export industry have meant that today our rich uranium resources supply only one-tenth of the world market. The current oversupply position has also meant that Australia will not be able to compete for and fill new major contracts until the early 1990s and this compromise of our national interest is, bluntly, a disgrace. The uranium industry, with proper safeguards, will make a major contribution to the improvement in lifestyles of many millions of people in our country and in other countries. The future is clear, as the Slatyer report shows. There will be an expansion in demand for nuclear energy. As at 1 March this year there were, as I recall, 243 nuclear plants in commercial operation in the Western world and another 160 were under construction. It is estimated that in the United States nuclear power will provide around 20 per cent of all electricity requirements by 1990. That makes opposition to the development of Australia's uranium industry even more of a sham than it is. I have pointed out that our nation has safety standards on uranium which lead the world. Quite simply, other nations with far less rigid restrictions are supplying the market gap which Australia would otherwise fill. Uranium is here to stay and it is nothing short of the most major indictment of this Government that it has been unable to formulate a strong uranium export policy. This is to the very real detriment, as a consequence, of Australia and Australians. As I have said, according to the Labor Party there are two kinds of uranium- good and bad uranium. The good uranium is at Roxby Downs. It is good because it is mixed up in the ground with other minerals such as gold and copper. The higher grade uranium at Ranger and Nabarlek is not too bad but the really bad uranium is at all other places in Australia where this very valuable and important energy resource occurs. In those places the uranium is not mixed up with other minerals but exists on its own. The Labor Party, in applying that double standard for which it has become notorious, has decided that the uranium at Roxby Downs can be mined and exported but that the other uranium in places other than Ranger and Nabarlek must stay in the ground. It would be hard to find a more hypocritical, opportunistic, expedient and blatantly political policy of convenience than this. (Extension of time granted) How can people who so loudly and persistently speak of the so-called dangers of uranium and of what they see as the evil nature of this mineral agree to its being mined and exported from Roxby Downs simply because it occurs there with other minerals which ought to be mined? Australia at present is a minor supplier of uranium to a world generously endowed with that mineral. Indeed at present it is oversupplied with it. But if we withdraw from the uranium market we will reduce ourselves to a position of total impotence and irrelevance so far as having any influence on the use of uranium is concerned. Is that what some of the ideologues of the Labor Party want? I trust that the more balanced members opposite will be able to talk such people out of that. This report logically, plausibly, argues their case in so moving the Leftists who would restrain us in the development of this area. It has been estimated by the South Australian Chamber of Mines that up to 4,650 potential jobs were lost because the South Australian and Federal governments prevented the development of the Honeymoon and Beverley mines and of an enrichment industry. Mr Coleman —It is a disgrace. Mr PEACOCK —It is absolutely disgraceful. One must add to it the facts relating to the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Government estimates that around 2,000 potential permanent jobs will be lost if the Koongarra and Jabiluka mines do not go ahead. At least $1,000m in investment will be lost. Western Australia and Queensland will also see jobs lost if the misguided attitudes of the Labor Party persist. The Aboriginal people, for whom Labor professes to have such concern, are being completely ignored by the Government and their wishes in the matter of uranium development have been treated with contempt. The expected export earnings at Jabiluka and Koongarra would have totalled about $4 billion and tax payable was around a billion dollars. This Government at present believes that tax revenue can be forgone and ordinary taxpayers can make up the difference. This Government at this stage, by adhering to a thoroughly discredited and unrealistic policy, is doing enormous economic damage to our country and to the lives of many thousands of Australians. The Government 's policy-or should I say non-policy-is illogical and unacceptable to the international community. It has disadvantaged the industrial development of the Northern Territory and parts of the States that I have mentioned. It is sidestepping its way down a path which will utterly destroy Australia's influence on the world's nuclear industry and which will undermine our influence in disarmament matters. I hope and trust that the Slatyer report on Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle will at least encourage some reason and logic in regard to the uranium debate within the Australian Labor Party. For it is our hope that the Government will at long last adopt an intelligent and responsible policy on the mining and export of uranium following the forthcoming Federal Labor Party conference. We wish the Prime Minister well in seeking to persuade those recalcitrant members of his Party to adopt a positive stance on the mining and export of uranium. If he succeeds he will be adopting a policy that we adopted some years ago. He will be adopting our policy. As a consequence he will be adopting a policy on the mining and export of uranium which is to the benefit of Australia. Debate (on motion by Mr Bilney) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.52) —It is with a great deal of anticipation and optimism that I ask leave of the House to move a motion to suspend Standing Orders. Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: That standing order 48A, as amended by the sessional order on 29 February 1984, relating to the adjournment of the House, and standing order 103, the 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings. It has not been my intention as Leader of the House to restrict speakers in the debates taking place. As honourable members opposite and members of the Government realise, we have set ourselves the target of the House rising on Thursday of next week. This is much preferable to the manner in which former governments have dealt with business by guillotining it and by chopping off all debate on matters. In fact, some years ago the Senate with a Liberal-National Party majority guillotined 14 Bills in half an hour. It is not the intention of this Government to do that. It may be necessary-I hope it is not-for us to sit one or two extra hours over the next five days. Opposition members all look a very healthy lot, so I do not think this will have a detrimental effect on their health. Mr Donald Cameron —Some people were so tired they could not move their lips. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Moreton can sit in the House, bring his superannuation in and count it to make sure it is all there. I can assure the honourable member that, as Leader of the House, I will continue to be just as generous with honourable members' right to speak over the next five days as I have been over the past three months. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.54) —The Opposition opposes the motion. There is no doubt that we all remember the way in which the former member for Grayndler used to come into this place and move guillotines and keep us here inordinately. There are few opportunities for back benchers of the Parliament to participate in debates. Government members interjecting- Mr SINCLAIR —Honourable members have short memories, I am afraid, because it was the former member for Grayndler who set low standards in the running of this Parliament. We all hoped for better things from the Special Minister of State ( Mr Young); sadly that was not to be so. Indeed, when he was talking about one of my colleagues a little while ago in relation to superannuation one could not help but think of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and wonder just how those bank coffers are turning over. That was an extraordinary period. I have no doubt that it might be even better if the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs were to see the Parliament sitting longer. I assure honourable gentlemen that in opposing the motion we believe the proper course is not to have people sitting here till a ridiculous hour, as we had last night and the night before. On Wednesday nights we were to have a great innovation, we were going to rise early. Last night, what time did we adjourn? It was 1.15 a.m. It is just not good enough. We know the difficulties the Special Minister of State has. His Ministers have not got their acts together. The legislative program is way behind. Certainly, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been trying to keep out of public note all those matters of controversy. He is trying hard to ensure that that image of purity which he would espouse is one he can take to the polls. Sadly the mess-up with the assets test, the absolute disaster that he has now fallen into with the breaches in the accord, the problems in migration policy and the difficulties we have with superannuation are all cumulative. What is happening is that instead of legislation being introduced into this place as it should have within a proper compass, with time for honourable members to consider it rationally with a forward program and with adequate opportunity to debate, we have now been told that we are going to have to sit late every night-not just tonight but every night. I know how the Special Minister of State in response to similar motions used to enjoy coming into this House and making the sort of speech which I am making now . However, I thought he was a fast learner. I know he does not like keeping secrets. I thought that after all that period sitting learning about how to run the House he might have decided he would have an extra week or two of sittings. I suggest that we do that instead of sitting late and calling on the staff, who so wonderfully serve us-even now they are taking down the interjections-being called on to work hard and stay in this place. For example, last night we had the Clerks at the table trying hard to keep their eyes open. It was in those circumstances that we had the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) telling us that we were not interested in the debate. If the Government likes to incite us by suggesting that we are not interested, then of course we will participate in the debate. We are prepared to co-operate. We believe the legislative program is paramount in the deliberations of this Parliament. We are not prepared to see the private members run over by a motion of this sort. We believe it is absolutely essential that there be whatever additional time is necessary for us to sit in order that there be proper deliberation on matters of this ilk. Therefore, the Opposition does not accept that the 11 o'clock rule should be suspended for the balance of this session. Indeed, the Opposition intends to oppose the motion. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(5.58) —We see here the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) moving a motion for us to sit night after night into the early hours of the morning. Only yesterday a letter was sent to all Australian Labor Party members. I will read the letter. It states 'Urgent' in great big letters and is addressed to all Government members of the House of Representatives. It says ' Extended Sitting, 30 May 1984'. This letter does not even mention the hours. The letter states: This morning I indicated in the House that the House would sit tonight with a dinner break from 6.30 to 8 p.m. I would stress the need for all Government members, including Ministers, to be in the building prior to 8 p.m. to avoid a repetition of last night's lack of quorum. I ask honourable members whether they know who signed the letter? The letter is signed Mick Young, Leader of the House. Here is the Minister wanting us to sit all night, day after day, yet he has to issue urgent letters to members of his own Party to come back into Parliament at 8 o'clock at night. Government members will not even come back at 8 o'clock. Yet, the Minister expects the Parliament to keep sitting. I watched honourable members on the Government benches last night. They were so tired that they could not even move their lips. This morning they were back in their offices sound asleep. There are only 11 Government members here now because they are all exhausted. I think most of the new Labor Party members of parliament must wonder what they have offered themselves for. They come in here and listen to the Minister at the table. When in opposition they used to criticise us for sitting one late night in three. They used to sit there agreeing with the honourable member who is now a Minister. He promised that Labor in government would never do that. The difference is that now the Government is doing it night after night. The Government will sit late all through next week. It has four or five doctors on its benches who are deeply concerned about the health of members on their side and members on this side. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is being sent home to bed at 8 o'clock at night because he cannot control himself in the House at Question Time. I am suggesting , Mr Speaker, that, if the Government has to issue urgent letters from the Leader of the House to Government members saying that they have to be back at 8 o'clock at night, it is absolutely ridiculous that we are expected to sit here through to 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. We sat until l o'clock the night before last and until 1.15 this morning, and it will be 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock next week. The Government is running this Parliament the same way as Joh Bjelke- Petersen runs the Parliament in Queensland and I have read the Labor Party's speeches about that. Therefore there is great inconsistency. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The bells having been rung- Mr Ewen Cameron —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it a fact that Government Business could not proceed at 1.15 a.m., as the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce was not in the Parliament? Mr SPEAKER —That is no point of order. The House Divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.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. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The damage to investment and employment as a result of the Government's apparent approval of a campaign of industrial action by the ACTU to gain superannuation for all employees within 18 months in addition to full wage indexation. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(4.11) —The Government should be in no doubt whatever that in the business community there is a very great fear emanating from, firstly, the industrial action in the building industry to get under the guise of superannuation what was disallowed as a wage claim by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, secondly, the announcement by the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions that there would be support by the ACTU for a superannuation claim on all employers on behalf of all employees within the next 18 months. This would obviously be in addition to full wage indexation and would be handled as an industrial matter, even though it is outside the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals. The trouble began with the fact that the Arbitration Commission, in accordance with the principles agreed to by the ACTU and the Government in the prices and incomes accord, rejected part of the claim in the building industry. It has been made quite clear by building union officials that the so-called superannuation claim in that industry is to compensate them for what they lost in having that agreement ratified by the tribunal. In fact, on 22 November 1983 at page 728 of the Arbitration Commission transcript, Mr Clancy, on behalf of the Building Workers Industrial Union, stated: . . . in the light of the disallowance of- what was called the BIRP allowance- the Building Industry Recoveries Procedure Allowance that there should now proceed a working party . . . to investigate the possibility of introduction of a national superannuation scheme for building workers . . . At another hearing in the Commission on 27 February 1984, at page 3 of the transcript, Mr Cummins, representing the Builders Labourers Federation and appearing before Commissioner MacMullan said: We are pursuing the $9 shortfall one way and blind Freddy can now see that the other building unions are doing the same. I can indicate that as late as noon today on the ABC 3LO program Mr Clancy indicated that he will be putting a scheme-a national superannuation scheme with the Government and A.C.T.U. support . And all that goes to underline the simple fact of our submission that why the double standards from the employer's point of view. There is $9 owed all around. We are pursuing it. The other unions are pursuing it in their own right as they see fit. That leaves one in no doubt that the way in which the trade union movement sees it is that what was disallowed by the Arbitration Commission will be gained over the award and outside that Commission, not as an alleged claim-because that would clearly be in breach of the accord and clearly in breach of their written undertakings to the Arbitration Commission-but as a so-called superannuation scheme. I have raised this matter in the House with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and also in other debates outside the House. In the last debate the Minister told the House that the claim for superannuation was a genuine one, although people in the industry as well as union leaders have made it quite clear that that is not so. It is money in lieu of rejection of the so-called BIRP allowance. The cost to the building industry alone is estimated at about $200m a year-not to mention, of course, the effects on the construction industry. Mr Tom McDonald of the BWIU has also admitted publicly that it would flow on to all other industries. I have mentioned in previous debates the effects of long service leave claims in the building industry. They have flowed on to other areas. Of course, the Minister has on his plate at the moment another problem concerning glass workers which has every prospect of flowing on. Clearly, the building industry union will be a stalking horse for the ACTU's recently announced campaign for superannuation for all within 18 months. That is the fear of industry and there is a belief that the Government is acquiescing in that campaign. Before I refer to what the Minister has said I quote from page 7 of the prices and incomes accord: There must be continuous consultation and co-operation between the parties involved. Government policy at all levels should be accommodating and supportive. One would have thought that the Government would lead and the trade union movement would be accommodating and supportive of it. Certainly, from the newspaper reports there does not appear to have been the degree of consultation that one might have expected on this matter. But we have now a simple factual situation where the accord gives consumer price index adjustments automatically without the ACTU even mounting a substantial case. There is therefore plenty of time for the trade union movement to mount claims which are in fact wage claims, but which are mounted under another name. As it is outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal, I suppose technically it may not be in breach of the guidelines or the undertakings given to that tribunal. Of course, practically, it is a fundamental breach of the spirit of the accord. The Government's decision to tax superannuation and its view of the assets test no doubt has stampeded activity by some trade unions, and the ACTU has decided to be in the vanguard of that action, without paying any heed to the effects on the economy. Now, presumably, the Government must be accommodating and supportive. Again, one must ask the old question: Who is leading? Is it the Government or is it the ACTU? The Minister has a chance today to indicate that point. Surely, the Government should be leading. But what is the Government doing to stop the flow on of the building industry claim? What action is the Government taking to lead on the issue and to assure the small and large employers-the investors of capital, whose investment and profits are needed to create more employment in Australia and increase our competitiveness-that they will not meet a crippling cost or go out of business next year? On 22 May the Secretary of the ACTU made a statement and it just happens that on the same day, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 May, the ACTU advocate in the building industry case, Mr Garry Weaven, made it quite clear when he told the Arbitration Commission that the ACTU would bring back industrial action by building unions in support of achieving a building industry superannuation fund. So on 22 May the ACTU supported industrial action in respect of superannuation in the building industry and, of course, as I have stated before, the $9 spoken of became $11 and the ACTU has been co-ordinating the handling of that claim, even though Mr Gallagher said: 'Let no one be in any doubt that it is a wage claim'. The ACTU-Australian Labor Party prices and incomes accord, at page 25, says this about superannuation: An immediate priority will be consideration of the possible role for a national superannuation scheme; more fundamental change may need to involve the creation of a specific fund into which workers could contribute for their own personal and family security. There is no suggestion from the building unions that their members will make any such contribution. There has been a half-hearted suggestion, so it seems, from the ACTU that there might be a contribution. But that contribution, as one reads about it or hears of it, seems to be out of productivity wage claims to which the trade unions say they have been entitled since 1981, but which they are prepared to forgo. Let us remember that they have not been awarded them officially; anyone who understands the economy could legitimately say that whatever productivity improvement had been occurring in those years has already gone in satisfying wage demands; in any event, even if arithmetically they were to say that the so-called productivity improvement of about 4 per cent was appropriate, where does that leave a viable superannuation fund with an employee contribution? The employers' contribution would be so burdensome, for it to be a meaningful scheme, that it would finally put many employers out of business or oblige them to use the depreciation allowances and install more technology to replace people. We will have a crisis situation if the business community, which is being begged by the Government to invest, is faced with a further on-cost. In fairness to the Minister-this is the point to which I want him to respond in particular- there was one report and one report only on 23 May, the day after the ACTU announcement. That was in the Australian. Under the heading 'National super plan not possible by end of 1985, says Willis', it states: The Minister . . . said it was 'not at all possible or desirable to have a national superannuation scheme introduced in 1985 without adversely impacting on both the prices and incomes accord and the economy. Mr Willis said it was the responsibility of the Government and the Arbitration Commission to ensure national superannuation did not destroy the wages system or the economy. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in rejecting the BIRP allowance made it abundantly clear that the accord could not work with full indexation and with these extra claims being granted. The Minister has often made those remarks too but the industry now fears that the Minister has approved the building industry claim and that he and the Government are tacitly supporting the demands by the ACTU for superannuation for all in the next 18 months. That same report states: Mr Kelty also foreshadowed discussions with the Government on the possibility of trading the ACTU's productivity claim next year for superannuation coverage. The employers not only know that productivity has been low but also believe that it has already gone in wage increases via the indexation system. As the report also indicates, Mr Kelty's superannuation announcement is apparently at odds with the statement by the ACTU President, Mr Dolan, who said that the ACTU would seek in its productivity claim to reduce working hours. The last part of this report-the Minister will certainly need to address himself to it-states: Mr Willis said there was no reason why superannuation should be denied to half of the work force but added the anomaly could only be rectified in a gradual and orderly manner. This would have 'some impact but not a large impact' on wage increases and the economy. The situation is that we cannot afford it. The Minister is correct in what he is quoted as having said. It is a desirable end but not all things are affordable at once. On 22 May, the date of the ACTU announcement, I released a two-page Press release with a whole series of questions to the ACTU and to the Minister. No response at all has been made to that. I believe that that Press release, which raised very thoughtful and very fair questions, must be answered in detail by the Minister. If it is not, the business community, the investing community, will have no confidence in the Government's willingness or capacity to control the claims of the ACTU. On 23 May the Australian Financial Review in a splendid editorial titled 'Superannuation and the Accord' set out all of the economic reasons why we could not at this moment afford to have an increase of that magnitude. I quote some portions of that editorial: After the tax cuts negotiations between the ACTU and the Federal Government, it looks as though the next major social wage issue to be pressed by the trade union movement will be extension of employer-funded superannuation schemes to the rest of the workforce. In this context, the push in the building industry for a superannuation scheme funded by a contribution of $11 per week per employee by employers, is effectively the spearhead for a wider ACTU strategy of securing superannuation gains in 1985. If this is to be an ACTU priority, then the first point which needs to be made is that any superannuation deal cannot be seen as a way of sidestepping the restraints of the prices and incomes accord. The editorial goes on to set out what the costs would be. Indeed, it states that if a claim of $11 a week per person were granted across the board to industry the additional direct cost on business cash flow could be of the order of $1.7 billion to $2 billion a year. That is an incredible burden for Australian industry in the state in which it is now placed. I commend to the Minister all of that editorial, which makes great economic and social sense. It must be clear to any thoughtful person that we cannot afford the following combination of outcomes: Low productivity, wage indexation, tax cuts, increased government services, increased employment and generous employer-funded superannuation for all. The ACTU leaders and the Federal Government must explain that to militant union leaders and to employees generally. The priorities of job security, retirement security or the maintenance of real wages must be determined. It is not possible to have all three in the foreseeable future. If superannuation is to become more widespread it will need to be funded by employees out of existing wages and the employer contribution will have to be regarded as a cost of a wage related character until both can be afforded when productivity improves. It is the responsibility of the ACTU and the Government to run an education campaign so that employees may understand the nature and objectives of superannuation. This should not be the subject of an industrial claim. The education campaign should be fortified by the employers at the place of work. Unless these steps are taken the prospects of superannuation must be resisted by employers and rightfully so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.26) — The wording of the matter of public importance which we are discussing is quite incorrect and misleading. Indeed, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) is quite wrong in suggesting that the Government has endorsed a campaign of industrial action by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to gain superannuation for all within 18 months. He is also quite wrong in saying that the ACTU has said that it will conduct a campaign of that nature. Let me get down to what the ACTU has said is the situation as far as it is concerned in relation to superannuation. The ACTU, after its congress last year and the executive meeting earlier this year, published a document which referred in part to this matter. It pointed to various matters which concern the trade union movement regarding occupational superannuation. It pointed first to the need for adequate incomes in retirement. It noted the inequitable distribution of occupational superannuation in terms of both the numbers covered by it, referring to the fact that less than half of the work force is covered by occupational superannuation, the quality of coverage, some people having very good superannuation and others having very poor superannuation coverage in one form or another. It has also called for a national retirement package to try to redress the situation and has indicated that that package could take various forms. I wish to quote briefly from the document which I referred to called 'The Way Ahead', which was an ACTU special report from the executive meeting held from 19 to 23 March 1984. Under the heading 'National Retirement Package' it said: In negotiating the national retirement package, the ACTU will advance the following propositions: It further stated: The means of providing retirement incomes to be based on either (i) A three tiered system based on (a) The improvement of existing occupational superannuation schemes, including a review of the taxation treatment of lump sum superannuation. that is a matter on which there has since been much discussion with the ACTU- (b) A national superannuation system which is either A supplement to existing occupational superannuation and pension schemes; or A minimum to which all employees not in superannuation schemes or in schemes with benefits less than the minimum would be entitled and (c) a Government pension which would necessarily be subject to an effective means test or (ii) A two-tiered system based on (a) The improvement in occupational superannuation . . . . and (b) A pension, which is not subject to any means test, to be funded on a supplementary basis by a levy. This in effect would be national superannuation. There were two alternatives which the ACTU postulated as forming a possible basis for a national retirement package. It went on: In line with our view that national productivity increases can be shared through other than increased real incomes, consideration be given to sharing such increases through the provision of genuine superannuation entitlements. In other words, it is saying that as an alternative, in whole or in part, to national productivity increases being put into a wage increase, as is contemplated under the wage fixation principles established by the Commission last September-that there would be a productivity case in 1985 in which it would consider the level of real wages-there could be increases and improvements in superannuation benefits for workers rather than in real wages. That aspect seems largely to have been missed by the honourable member for Balaclava. Subsequent to that executive meeting, on 21 May the Secretary of the ACTU made a speech which was referred to by the honourable member for Balaclava in moving this matter of public importance. That speech was reported in some parts of the Press as being a call for superannuation for all next year. Indeed, some newspapers in reporting that speech used that heading on their articles. In reporting the speech the Age newspaper used a heading of that type. That article reads: The ACTU next year will begin a superannuation campaign on behalf of more than three million workers not covered by existing schemes. The secretary of the ACTU, Mr Bill Kelty, yesterday foreshadowed the campaign, which would be based on an expected rise in national productivity of 4 per cent. Mr Kelty said the campaign-which would cover about half the workforce-would be pursued in an orderly way and would not conflict the prices and incomes accord of the centralised wage-fixing system. He said the ACTU would discuss the mechanics of presenting a productivity claim dealing with superannuation in meetings with the Federal Government. Although the Secretary of the ACTU refers to a campaign, what he is talking about is discussing, in negotiations with the Government, the possibility of having a trade-off for a wage increase based on productivity instead of through an improvement in superannuation coverage and benefits. I believe that is an extremely important aspect to get thoroughly fixed in one's mind on this issue, and that is that the ACTU is not talking about some wild industrial campaign in which it intends next year to hammer every employer into the ground to get superannuation for all, but rather it is talking about negotiating with the Government as a means of obtaining next year a wide coverage in relation to superannuation by means of a productivity trade-off. Let me say straight away that that proposal has various problems which I shall come to later. Nevertheless, that is the position it is putting forward. Of course, that does not mean that there could not also be some spread of occupational superannuation other than through that course of negotiation with the Government. That also is clear from the alternative paths to which I referred in the ACTU's document entitled 'The Way Ahead'. Clearly the ACTU is talking about an expansion of occupational superannuation, recognising that if that happens there has to be a trade-off for a real wage rise which would otherwise have been a possibility. I believe that that is tremendously important . It does not indicate an irresponsible attitude on the part of the ACTU. On the contrary, it indicated a realisation of the facts that it has to pursue this claim for wider coverage of superannuation so that all workers are entitled to have a decent retirement income. If it is to pursue that objective, it has to do it in a responsible way. In fact, that is what it is suggesting that it will do. There is no suggestion of a wild, irrational rush of claims, regardless of the effect on the economy, economic recovery, the prices and incomes accord, the national wage fixing principles or whatever. Nowhere has it been said that the objective was necessarily superannuation for all in 1985. The ACTU said that it would commence a campaign of superannuation for all in 1985. It has not necesssarily said that it will achieve superannuation for all in 1985. Certainly without some national negotiations that would involve a trade-off of a real wage increase for productivity, there would be no chance of achieving the objective in one year. However, that is realised by the ACTU. It is wrong to say, as the honourable member for Balaclava said or as he implied, if he did not say it explicitly, in the terms of his matter of public importance, that all workers would be covered by superannuation in 1985. That has not been said by the Secretary of the ACTU, nor has it been said in any ACTU document that I have ever seen. I come to the Government's view of occupational superannuation. The Government recognises that a large proportion-more than half-of the work force has no superannuation coverage. As I said, according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, about 40 per cent of the work force are covered by some occupational superannuation and 60 per cent are not. The Government believes it is not reasonable, possible or fair to say to that 60 per cent of the work force that they have no entitlement, now or ever, to seek occupational superannuation coverage. The Government does not say at all that because those workers have not managed occupational superannuation coverage until now, under the wage-fixing principles that we are following occupational superannuation coverage, that they will have no entitlement to pursue it ever. It would be totally unreasonable if the Government were to say that. One has to bear in mind that in the 1970s in particular Australia went through a period when there was a spread of occupational superannuation schemes. It must be expected that as the economy becomes buoyant that process will recommence. It certainly went into hibernation during the recession but, with a return to economic recovery, we must expect that there will be a recommencement of the spread of occupational superannuation schemes. Some 40 per cent of the work force are already covered by such schemes; the other 60 per cent obviously will eye off such schemes and increasingly demand to be part of them. The Government does not regard the pursuit of occupational superannuation as being outside the prices and incomes accord. Indeed, it is specifically mentioned in the accord. The honourable member for Balaclava was wrong in saying that the part of the accord that he quoted was the only part that mentions superannuation. It says also: The objectives of social security policy are to . . . redress anomalies in the availability of occupational welfare such as superannuation benefits. So it is specifically mentioned in the accord as being an element of that accord . The Government does not say that it is against the principles of the accord to pursue occupational superannuation; nor does it say that such pursuit is against the national wage fixing principles. I note in that regard-the honourable member for Balaclava omitted to do so-that it is not an industrial matter or a matter in relation to which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission could make an award. Nevertheless, it does involve an increase in labour costs. The Government admits that. Obviously that is the case. If an employer on behalf of an employee makes contributions to a fund for superannuation, that adds to his labour costs. That has to be taken into account somewhere. The Government certainly agrees that that is the case. It cannot be expected that the funding of occupational superannuation will have no consequences whatever. Account must be taken of that . It seems to the Government that the obvious way in which to take that into account within the current principles is for the Commission to have regard to it in the context of a national productivity case. Regardless of the negotiations mentioned by the ACTU, if there is a spread of occupational superannuation, when a national productivity case is heard-the first one will be heard in 1985 under the existing principles-the Commission, in considering what real wage increase it could give, would certainly in the Government's view be right in having regard to the spread of occupational superannuation in the period that was relevant to its considerations. The Government admits that. It certainly will assert that to the Commission. It has made that assertion to the Commission recently in the case involving the flow-on of the 4.1 per cent to the building workers. The Government said that that is the way in which the extension of occupational superannuation could be taken into account. Of course, the greater the spread of superannuation the smaller will be the wage rise granted in the productivity case next year. That is a fact . The ACTU recognises it. Indeed, it goes one step beyond that and says that it is prepared to negotiate for a spread of occupational superannuation, knowing that it would reduce any real wage increase that might otherwise have been possible. I ask the House to note also that the occupational superannuation spread was substantial when the Opposition was in government. It is not something that has commenced only under this Government. In 1974, 32 per cent of the work force was covered, compared with 40 per cent in 1983. That increase in coverage occurred under centralised and decentralised wage systems. The Fraser Government never argued that the spread of such occupational superannuation was a cause of economic disaster and should be prevented. I never heard that Government put forward that argument in this House or before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Rather, it said that it supported the development of occupational superannuation. This Government also supports the spread of occupational superannuation. As the honourable member for Balaclava mentioned, we supported it in the building industry, an area into which it is difficult to introduce superannuation on an individual employer basis. If it is to be introduced, it has to be done on an industry basis. Doing it in that way provides the prospect of finalising an agreement on industrial relations practices which is desperately needed in the industry. I have never seen an industry in as much of an industrial relations mess as is the building industry. The Government inherited the industry in that mess. I think there has been a distinct improvement in that industry since the Government has been in office, but I would be the first to admit that there are still some fairly wild elements in that industry which continue to cause disruption. That is a continuing problem. One of the things that the Government must do to get the economy going properly , even better than it is at present, is to improve industrial relations in the building industry. One way in which we can do that is by tying up the superannuation scheme, including an industrial relations agreement which is the key basis on which the Government has supported the extension of superannuation in the building industry. It also has to be genuine superannuation and there must be an orderly extension of superannuation schemes after that. The ACTU has given us that assurance. In a telex to me it said: . . . the ACTU reaffirms its commitment given to you verbally that 1. the proposed building industry superannuation scheme will not form the basis for flow-on of such schemes to other areas, and 2. the further development of occupational superannuation will proceed in a gradual and orderly manner. That is a telex to me from Mr Bill Kelty, Secretary of the ACTU. The superannuation-productivity trade-off for 1985 has some difficulties. We will discuss those with the ACTU. I will not go through the problems involved but we will certainly discuss them. I applaud the ACTU-I do not denigrate it-for the responsible way in which it is going about the pursuit of the expansion of occupational superannuation in this country. It is doing so very much with an eye to the wage principles and economic recovery of this country. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(4.41) —On 4 May, during a debate on the prices and incomes accord, I was prepared to give the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) the benefit of any doubt about his personal involvement in efforts to circumvent his Government's wage guidelines. Despite having an indisputable right on that occasion to respond to views expressed in the debate, the Minister chose not to answer. In particular, he failed to deny the widely- held belief that he has done more than any other to undermine his own Government 's wage guidelines. Today he has not chosen to deny his leading role in subverting that part of the Hawke Government's guidelines which include the words 'only in circumstances which could not have been foreseen at this date'- that is, the date the accord was agreed-'should increases in existing award allowances or service increments be created'. Since soon after the Hawke Government's election in March last year, just 15 long months ago, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has been up to his armpits helping to devise and disguise schemes to get around the just quoted guidelines on allowances. The Minister played a personal and a leading part in defeating his own Government's guidelines and wage fixing principles in at least one major industry. He made mention of that in the remarks he has just concluded. He did that by masterminding an infamous device which became known as the building industry recovery procedures allowance. It is not to the Minister's credit that that artificial ploy was seen for what it was and rejected by an Anomalies Bench and a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; nor is it any credit to the Minister that on receiving that rebuff from the Commission to his behind-the-scenes plotting he promptly and publicly advocated the pursuance of an industry-funded superannuation scheme for building industry employees that was in effect to replace the failed building industry recovery procedures allowance claim. What followed this advocacy of the Minister was all very predictable. Industrial disruption on building sites around Australia became the order of the day and is still the order of the day in support of the $11 superannuation claim , and the blame for that rests squarely with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Now we find that, whilst the building industry superannuation scheme was the brainchild of the Minister and until recently was confined to one industry, the building industry, the concept has been escalated to encompass all industry. That sad and sorry development is a direct consequence of the Minister's behind-the-scenes plotting and scheming, dating back to his connivance in developing the so-called package demanded by the Builders Labourers Federation and other building unions early last year. It was, and is, the act of a man who remains essentially a union advocate, not the work of a Minister in a government which lays claim to be able effectively to manage the nation's economy. It was the act of a union advocate and not the work of a Cabinet Minister who accepts the need to eliminate uncertainty that comes with the cost pressures that an industry-wide superannuation scheme will generate. The economic insanity we talk of in this context is quite simply the work of an industrial advocate for the union movement, a man incidentally directed by another industrial advocate in the form of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Both the Prime Minister and the Minister have made the trade union movement agents of their Government. The Australian Council of Trade Unions is fast becoming no more and no less an arm of government under this Administration. Part of the price to be paid for this second and largely unwanted arm of government is ACTU domination of economic policy, and economic planning. One does not have to look too far for evidence of ACTU dictatorship in economic matters which were hitherto the sole prerogative of universally elected Australian governments. We need refer only to demands by the ACTU and seemingly accepted by the Government on the size and targeting of income tax cuts which will form part of the next Budget. In fact, the precedent-setting decision to divulge Budget information to the ACTU, and the ACTU alone, must rank as one of the all-time great sell-outs by any democratically elected government anywhere. Not only is even-handed and firm leadership in industrial relations matters heavily discounted under this Minister and the Prime Minister, but also are confidential Budget information and figures being divulged to their union masters. What other Australian government could be so mindlessly coerced into meeting the outrageous demands of the unrepresentative few who comprise the ACTU executive? We all knew that the Government would have to pay the price of ACTU support sooner or later. The debt is obviously thought to be due and the first instalments are being demanded. The trouble is that those instalments will go on and on and no one, least of all the Government, seems to know the total price or even when the final payment will fall due. Currently we have the ludicrous situation where the Hawke Government, through the Minister has asked the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to pay a claim to building workers who are in breach of the Government's own guidelines and the wage fixing principles that it has agreed with the Commission. In its submissions to the Commission on that matter, the Government has again shown its preparedness to yield on its own wage fixing principles. Despite being told by the Commission that building workers had breached wage fixing principles, this Government persists in supporting the payment of the 4.1 per cent national pay rise properly being withheld by the Commission. Given all that has happened in the process of breaking down the cornerstone of the Government's wages and incomes powers and policies and the Minister's unqualified support it seems for superannuation schemes, firstly, for the building industry and, latterly, for the whole of industry, all Australians will understand the concern we express in raising this matter of public importance. Of course we are concerned about the damage to investment and employment growth as a result of the Government's apparent approval of a campaign of industrial action by the ACTU to gain superannuation for all employees within 18 months in addition to full wage indexation. The Minister referred to previous Liberal governments and their attitude to superannuation. It should be noted that, since the times of the early Menzies governments, encouragement has been given to employers in the private sector to adopt private superannuation schemes. They have grown and developed on actuarial advice employer by employer. What we do not subscribe to is the imposition of a scheme across the board by government edict. That is an entirely different matter. The adverse implications for employment and private sector investment are enormous. The expected industrial campaign by the ACTU in its almost inevitable attempt to force acceptance of a universal superannuation scheme will be economically debilitating in the extreme. Uncertainty will be magnified and economic recovery will be retarded as those in existing superannuation schemes ponder their position. For example, the 25 per cent of workers in the private sector who already take part in superannuation schemes want to know whether they will have to forgo a share of future productivity increases so that others may be superannuated at what promises to be considerable cost to them. The Minister talks about trade-offs. What about the effect on the 25 per cent of people who already belong to a superannuation fund and who would, almost certainly, be excluded as a result of the negotiations he spoke of? Worst of all will be the consequences for private sector employment if the cost of a universal or near universal superannuation scheme becomes another superimposed on-cost along with payroll taxes, workers compensation insurance, public holiday loadings, annual leave and leave loadings which add anything from 40 per cent to 60 per cent to the gross wages payable by employers. That will be another crippling burden for industry and private employers to carry. It might very well prove to be too much of a burden. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(4.52) —I rise to respond in relation to the matter of public importance which has been put forward by the Opposition today. I am somewhat amazed that members of the Opposition have the hide even to come forward with such a matter of public importance, worded as it is. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has already pointed out that the statements made in it are incorrect and highlight the thick hides of members of the Opposition. The matter of public importance, in part, reads: The damage to investment and employment . . . Anybody who has been watching what has been happening over the last seven years in Australia will realise that if anybody has damaged investment and employment it is the people sitting on the Opposition benches. Under their regime we saw unemployment skyrocket and investment fall through the floor. It was in a constant decline for most of the period they were in office. The confidence of private investment totally disappeared. Since attaining office we have been able to turn around unemployment to such an extent that we have reached a stage now where some 225,000 jobs have been created, unemployment has dropped by 33,000, there is greater participation by people in the work force and, in the area of investment, a number of signs indicate that there is renewed confidence by private enterprise in the way Australia is going. With this matter of public importance, members of the Opposition have, once again-as in so many other areas such as immigration and pensions-attempted to distort the quite reasonable stands being taken by organisations such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government in an attempt to hype up some issue for which they can try to gain some credibility. In order to do so they have totally distorted the position of the ACTU: They have suggested that what the ACTU was about was an industrial campaign, industrial action. Any reasonable reading of the statements that have been made by the representatives of the ACTU make it quite clear that that is not the decision that was made. Let us take the statement that was made by Simon Crean on radio station 3LO. He was talking about putting superannuation on the agenda in the terms of the productivity cases which are to take place next year. Mr Kelty has made it quite clear that any movement in the superannuation area would be done in an orderly manner and, what is more, it would not threaten the prices and incomes accord or wage indexation. As has been pointed out, it is very important to realise that there has been a constant trend of increasing involvement in superannuation by the whole of the work force. It is not as if there were not changes under the previous Administration. In fact, there has been somewhere near an 8 per cent increase in participation in superannuation across the board. Seventy per cent of works in particular industries are involved in a superannuation scheme. It is a fact of life that the most disadvantaged in relation to participation in superannuation schemes are those on low incomes, those in unskilled areas and women. As has been pointed out by the ACTU and by the Minister, it is simply not good enough for members of the Opposition to be able to come into this chamber and say what we, as a government, should be doing and what the ACTU should be saying to those people who are disadvantaged, in particular the low income earners and the women. They are saying to 60 per cent of those in the work force: 'You have no entitlement and no right to believe that you should be able to participate in superannuation schemes'. The ACTU has said that what it is about in terms of its decision to highlight superannuation is that with any productivity case there is no reason to believe that the gains that workers are rightfully entitled to-this was recognised in the prices and incomes accord-should all be paid in the form of wage increases. There are other ways that the benefits of increased productivity can be received by workers. As the ACTU said, superannuation is one of those ways. It has said that it is raising superannuation in that context, there should be greater participation and that productivity gains should be shared and will flow on to those who are being disadvantaged. The Minister has pointed out, both in interviews and in reports, that the Government is saying that as long as it is done in a reasonable, orderly manner, in a progressive way and still within the accord, the Government will not be opposing it. As he has quite rightly pointed out with the communiques that he received from the ACTU, the ACTU has given the assurance that that is in fact what it will do. The reports that have been made in the media on the Minister's statements in relation to the decision by the ACTU make the Government's position quite clear and show that the stand being taken is a very reasonable one. What do members of the Opposition do? Once again, they distort the facts. As I said, it is typical of their current method of operation to take every issue, totally distort it, try to gain some credit and then not come forward with any alternative proposition. Members of the Opposition have spent some months developing their industrial relations policy. When they announced it they admitted that, if introduced, it would lead to industrial unrest. They are talking about the ACTU' s policy, which is not one of industrial unrest. They are talking about the performance of this Government. There have been drastic reductions in industrial disputation since we attained government and introduced our policies. They are saying that they have a better alternative because what they will introduce will cause industrial unrest! We have their previous record which has shown that they were incapable of managing the economy and that they had a disastrous impact on the work force. They are saying to the community and to industry that if they were re-elected they would ensure that there would be more industrial disputation because their policy is aimed to achieve that. I think that the public is quite capable of seeing through their absurd policy and also the absurdity of the matter of public importance. There is no doubt, if we have a look at the economic indicators, that there is confidence in private industry. As I have stated investment and employment are increasing and unemployment is decreasing. The gross domestic product is likely to increase by about 6 per cent between 1982-83. We are seeing the participation by the trade union movement, under the auspices of the ACTU, in ensuring that it observes the accord. The policy that it has come out with in relation to superannuation is one which is quite reasonable and falls within the expectation of the accord. Given that we have all that, the public will be able to see that the Opposition's matter of public importance is absolutely absurd when compared with its record. As I have said, those who are most disadvantaged by the superannuation scheme are the low income earners and women. Those are the people in the greatest need for superannuation coverage. Those are the people who have the least capacity, during their working lives, to be able to set aside enough assets to ensure that they have a reasonable retirement wage. The ACTU should be applauded for setting out to try to redress the disadvantages that those people are suffering rather than the Opposition coming into this chamber and attempting to denigrate the ACTU for taking a very positive stand in relation to improving the working conditions of the Australian community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The time for this debate has now expired. Consideration resumed. The Bill. Question put: That the amendment (Mr McVeigh's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (Madam Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Shipton, R. F.Hall, Steele Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.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. Dobie, J. D. M. Hayden, W. G.McVeigh, D. T. Steedman, A. P. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(5.13) —I want to reiterate one point that I made earlier today . The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said that he did not have time to refer to it. Proposed new section 30 states that there will be two annual general meetings of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation; one for livestock producers and one for exporters and processors. As proposed in the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill, if the annual general meetings wish to pass a vote of no confidence in the Chairman of the Corporation it will require a 75 per cent majority of both annual general meetings. I pointed out to the Minister earlier that I think in practice such a situation could almost never occur even though there may be very valid grounds for wishing to pass a vote of no confidence. These provisions also apply in reverse should the Corporation wish to raise levies. In other words, both meetings would have to vote by a 75 per cent majority to refuse to increase those levies. In practice I do not think it would ever be possible to get that system working. I draw this to the attention of the Minister and I hope that he will comment. In practice I think such a system is unworkable and would weaken the Meat and Livestock Corporation because it would virtually take away the opportunity for the annual general meeting to carry out that function should it in the unlikely situation ever have to do it. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.16) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the House declines to give the bill a second reading as it is of opinion that the establishment of a statutory authority for this purpose is unnecessary and that the proposed functions of the Council should be carried out by agreement between the interested parties, provision for which should be included in existing legislation'. Notice of this amendment was given by the honourable member for Darling Downs ( Mr McVeigh), the shadow Minister for Primary Industry. He has had to attend a long-standing engagement and therefore I have moved the amendment. The reasons for moving this amendment were canvassed during the general second reading debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hunt —Yes, I second the amendment. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.17) —As the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has said, we have partially covered this matter in the more general debate but I think it is necessary to give the reasons why the Government rejects this amendment. First of all, as I have already said, this is not another quango, an additional statutory marketing authority. The Government is eliminating three statutory authorities and even counting the new Statutory Selection Committee it is still a reduction of one. Of course honourable members opposite have made their usual disparaging remarks about public servants. The public servants from my Department who will be associated with the Livestock Industry Policy Council are people known to me, particularly one. They are excellent public servants. They have a detailed knowledge of the meat industry and there are no fears on my part on that account. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of honourable members opposite about whether or not there is a need for the Policy Council to be in a statutory form. The Policy Council will be more than just an advisory committee; it will formally assume a function now vested in the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I have given the reasons for making the AMLC a more constructive, active marketing organisation and the Government is trying to move the politics of the industry-the agro-politics, the general politics-into this Policy Council . So we are putting the power which is now vested in the AMLC into the Policy Council and that power is to prepare reports and formulate plans on matters affecting the meat and livestock industry for consideration by the Minister. Thus an existing function is being transferred from one statutory body to another. Without statutory obligations and accountability there could be no confidence that a body which was set up would carry out the work expected of it, especially given a similar interest to those represented on the Council and the need for reaching agreement. There were other comments in the more general debate about the Policy Council and I would like briefly to canvass them. As I said in my concluding remarks in the cognate debate, one of the criticisms or views was centred on the number of meetings held each year. It is expected that the Council would wish to meet more than four times in the first calendar year of its operation. Six meetings are planned in its first year of operation. In any case the chairman has the power to convene such meetings as he thinks necessary. If honourable members read the legislation carefully they will see that any six members of the Council can request further meetings of the Council in writing. In respect of the biennial conference the Policy Council is required to hold a conference at least once every two years. This is realistic as industry-wide conferences of a worthwhile nature take time to organise and to prepare background papers for it. I point to the very constructive outcome of the grains conference some years ago. It took a while to get that conference organised but it was a very effective conference in terms of the wheat industry indeed. It is envisaged that there will be a very wide opportunity for members of the industry to attend the biennial conference. Voting rights at the conference is a matter for the Policy Council itself to decide as the conference organiser. Voting on most matters may not be required because the conference is primarily an exchange of views from industry sectors so that they can focus on the issues. It is envisaged that conference views should not be binding on policy councils. In that way we will get a more effective discussion. The Government totally rejects the view of the Opposition that the Council is just another quango. The Council is inherent and intrinsic to the legislation and to the approach we are taking with this most important package of Bills of reform of the Australian meat and livestock industry. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lloyd's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.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. 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. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Steedman, A. P. McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (GRANTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. (Quorum formed) Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(5.37) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the principal Opposition speaker on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1984 is to be the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), so I will leave him to address the more substantial part of the legislation. As he will inform the House, the coalition does not oppose either of these Bills although, as he will explain in detail, it holds very serious reservations about them. The honourable member for Gwydir will talk in some detail about the problems they will create. The area I would like to talk about in particular is how this legislation affects the people of Tasmania. I should explain to the House that liquefied petroleum gas is a very important energy form in Tasmania. In fact, its importance to that State cannot be overemphasised. The reason it is so important is that, unlike all the mainland States of Australia, there is no natural gas in Tasmania. Because of the special nature of the Tasmanian market-a very small market-and the fact that there are no gas or oil fields which are likely to be tapped for that market, it is very unlikely in the foreseeable future that, even if gas fields were found adjacent to the Tasmanian coast, they could never be developed for the use of the Tasmanian community. So Tasmania has no natural gas . We have no coal to speak of. Although there are some deposits which are being earmarked around the State, they will almost certainly have to be used for any power scheme involving the thermal generation of electricity, if that is the course the Tasmanian Government finally chooses to take. Finally, and most unfortunately, because of decisions taken by the Hawke Government to deny to Tasmanians the ability to use Tasmania's dams and the hydro-electric potential which could have been developed by the Gordon below Franklin dam scheme the potential for hydro-electricity development has been considerably shortened. What it boils down to is the fact that Tasmanian consumers who wish to use energy have the choice of electricity or LP gas, either in the form of household cylinders or, in the case of Launceston, LP gas which is reticulated to a number of houses and other users. The users are very widespread. For example, they include a number of hotels, snack bars and restaurants. So the use of LP gas is terribly important for our tourism industry, which is one of the key industries in the State. It is also used by industry, both large and small, for the raising of steam and so forth and thus its use is a very important component of industry and its costs. It is used also by householders, amongst whom are a great number of pensioners who are very hard pressed to be able to pay for it. I will come to that in a few moments . The problem is that users of LP gas, have been very hard hit because of the price that they have to pay. There are several reasons for this high cost. I will pinpoint three: Firstly, the Federal Government's unfair manipulation of the parity pricing policy; secondly, the very large excise tax which the Federal Government levies on LP gas; and, thirdly, the very high cost of freight in bringing that LP gas across Bass Strait. First I will deal with the manipulation of the parity pricing policy. The Government stuck very rigidly to the existing price mechanisms that were put in place by the previous Government. This means, if we go back to 1 July 1983, that it has stuck to this policy even though it took the price of LPG out of line with other fuel and like commodities. This had the direct result of increasing by 87 per cent the net price paid by those people who used LPG. It went from $ 120.15 to $224.44 a tonne. Of course, 1 January 1984 was another point when a determination had to be made by the Government in pursuing its parity pricing policy. In this case the Government did not follow the existing price setting mechanisms. If it had, the wholesale price of gas which was then $304.44 a tonne -or an effective $224.44 a tonne after subsidy was taken off-would have been brought down to slightly below the CPI indexed level; that is, it would have been brought down to $254 a tonne including the subsidy. Instead, the Government left the price at $304.44 wholesale or $224.44 after subsidy. This meant that the producers of naturally occurring gas and those who were producing it in the refineries benefited by selling into our local markets at a price which was $50 a tonne higher than they could have obtained on the export market. That, of course, provided a windfall profit for them at the expense of all other Australian LPG consumers, and that is despite the fact that this country is bubbling over with gas in the West and in the Bass Strait oil and gas fields. We have a superabundance of it. As the honourable member for Gwydir will point out, we produce several million tonnes of gas but only consume 500,000 tonnes here. The Government levies a large excise tax. The honourable member for Gwydir will point this out, so I will do no more than emphasise that point. The Government, in a full year, using the new excise-as we all know it is now indexed-will get $ 1.2m in a full year and for this year it will get $600,000. So the Government takes a hefty whack from the people who use LP gas and pops it into its coffers. The particular problem of Tasmania is the freight component. All consumers in Tasmania must pay the cost of getting the LPG across Bass Strait. That is a costly factor in the price because of the very low volume which the State uses. The item of LP gas is not included in freight equalisation- Mr Groom —They are going to get rid of that scheme anyway. Mr NEWMAN —So there is no allowance through that scheme to equalise the cost of the freight-a cost which applies in moving it around any other mainland State. As the honourable member for Braddon said, most Tasmanian members are looking very anxiously at the work that the Inter-State Commission is doing on freight equalisation. We all hope very strongly that that Inter-State Commission will present its report to the Government in time for everybody to see what the Government may propose to do before it calls an early election. I return to the cost of freight of LPG. It is costly, first of all, to transport it across the Strait because of the low volume that we use, and secondly, it is not included in freight equalisation so it does not accrue any special subsidies through that scheme. But an even more wretched position is raised, one which not only I but all of my colleagues find obnoxious-that is, when our ship lines up in the Bass Strait fields to take on LP gas, it takes its chance behind all the other international tankers that are waiting to get their loads to take to places like Japan and other places where we sell the LP gas. Those ships, in taking their place in the queue behind international shipping, accrue demurrage, sometimes at quite high cost. Those costs of demurrage are then added to the cost paid by Australian consumers in Tasmania because it is added to the freight costs of getting it across Bass Strait. If that is not adding insult to injury, I do not know what is. Tasmanians are forced to pay more for their gas because in loading gas foreign ships have priority over our ships. That is one situation which must be urgently rectified. What is the effect of all these factors? As I said, despite the fact that Australia is endowed with vast quantities of natural gas, Tasmanians are being denied reasonably priced access to these resources. They are resources which should be shared equally and fairly among all Australians. But Tasmanians are missing out. I will cite some figures. A Tasmanian householder in Launceston using liquefied petroleum gas pays $35.40 for an average household cylinder. In Melbourne, the same cylinder can be purchased for as little as $23.77; in Echuca , the price is $28; if it is bought from Henderson's gas it will cost $26; in Wodonga it costs $26.50; in Bairnsdale, $29; in Mildura, $30.50. If it is bought from the Gas and Fuel Corporation in Melbourne it will cost $27. The average price of Victorian LPG is $27.50. I compare that with the figure paid by the poor Tasmanian consumer. As I mentioned before, it affects a wide cross-section of the community, including pensioners. They have to pay $35.40 for that same cylinder of Australian gas which, as I say, and which all Tasmanians say, should be shared equally and fairly among all of us. Mr Groom —There is no need at all. Mr NEWMAN —I refer to another example, a comparison between electricity and LPG prices to domestic consumers. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I suggest to the honourable member for Braddon that the honourable member for Bass does not need any help. Mr NEWMAN —I do not mind receiving help from him, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to a table issued by the Australian Gas Association in a document entitled 'A Proposal for Wholesale Prices for LPG in Australia'. It gives figures for September. In Tasmania we pay, effectively, $2.90 to $3.28 for a megajoule of fuel for cooking. For space heating, the figures are $2.07 to $2.34 a megajoule. That compares with the figures for South Australia of $2.40 to $2.94 for cooking fuel and $1.71 to $2.10 for hot water. I repeat: The figure for space heating in South Australia is $1.71 to $2.10 a megajoule compared with $2.07 to $2.34 in Tasmania. That is another example of how Tasmanians are being slugged compared with their counterparts on the mainland. A Tasmanian family on a reticulated gas supply pays at least twice to three times the amount paid by a Melbourne family using natural gas. Tasmanian commercial and industrial users who pay high prices for their gas are penalised in trying to compete with mainland enterprises because their costs are considerably higher than those paid by industry users on the mainland. The crowning insult is that a Japanese housewife boiling a billy in Tokyo pays less for her gas than do those housewives who might be trying to do the same thing in Launceston. The facts are these: Tasmania and Tasmanians are a part of Australia and we deserve a fairer deal. Given the huge amount of revenue collected by the Government through taxes on gas and given that Tasmania uses only a fraction of one per cent of the gas used in Australia-that is calculated to be 20,000 tonnes out of 500,000 tonnes-the Federal Government has to act to alleviate this unfair problem. The Federal gas subsidy of $20.31 per tonne should be increased for Tasmania to compensate for Bass Strait freight charges. The subsidy should be raised for Tasmanian users so that they pay no more than the average paid by Australian users, which is presently about $28 per average cylinder. This would result in a fair reduction of $5 to $7 per cylinder for Tasmanian householders. The cost to Canberra of providing this help would be absolutely trifling. It is very interesting to go back to see what the then Opposition spokesman on energy, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), had to say about it. On 21 September, as recorded in Hansard, he has this to say about the question of subsidies: This decision- that is, to have the $80 subsidy- has the full support of the Opposition, as liquefied petroleum gas has become an important energy source in many parts of rural and provincial Australia. Any attempt to remove the subsidy- boy, is this hollow when one thinks about it- . . . without notification and without adequate phasing-out provisions would not receive the support of the Australian Labor Party. We do not believe the consumers who receive the subsidy should be significantly disadvantaged in terms of energy costs relative to consumers in the cities. I quote that again- Mr Hunt —Who said that? Mr NEWMAN —The honourable member for Blaxland, now the Treasurer. He said: We do not believe the consumers who receive the subsidy should be significantly disadvantaged in terms of energy costs relative to consumers in cities. I remind the House that Tasmanian householders are one example but that all other commercial and industrial users are likewise disadvantaged. A householder in Tasmania pays $35 to $36 for a household cylinder. In Victoria the average price is $28 per cylinder and it can be obtained for as little as $23 in Melbourne. That is what the honourable member for Blaxland had to say. There is a clear case here of the whole of Tasmania being disadvantaged compared to mainland cities or, in fact, mainland country areas. Then he went on: It was the disadvantaged position that these consumers were in that led to the introduction of the subsidy . . . It is only fair that the people in these areas receive some assistance to narrow the gap between their costs and the costs which their city counterparts bear when it comes to the price of energy in this form. All we ask now is that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) put his mouth and his hands where they were back in September 1982 and that he recognise that there is indeed now a grave disadvantage in Tasmania. In fact, Tasmania is once again being left in the cold when it comes to the fair and equitable sharing of Australia's gas resources. Mr Simmons —All those promises! Mr NEWMAN —The honourable member should look at some of the things he promised. I hope his electorate is remembering what he said and has failed to deliver. We have been denied the benefits of being able to use our own cheap hydro- electricity and now we are being slammed for using the only alternative left to us, gas. Subsidies are not always palatable but in this case both sides have accepted that subsidies are required. I think that all parties should now go further and recognise that Tasmania has a special position. It is a special position, and that it should be recognised. It is a special position that can be easily recognised out of the vast amount of money which the Government collects in revenue by way of excise. The easy way of remedying the situation is to provide a subsidy for the freight cost of getting LPG across Bass Strait. A subsidy could be applied so that any user in Tasmania, using the criterion of the householder, pays no more than the average user in Victoria. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(5.54) —It is indeed a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). It was interesting to hear some of the selective socialist principles which he espoused, seeing he is a member of the Liberal Party, in this chamber tonight. As I said, it is a pleasure to follow him. I am delighted that he has changed his views over the years on the use of liquefied petroleum gas. I remind the House that when the honourable member for Bass was the Minister for National Development and Energy he tried to convince the New South Wales local government gas industry that LPG was indeed a premium fuel which was available only for automotive use and was not to be burned or wasted away on kitchen stoves. I was pleased to hear some of his remarks tonight in the course of the debate on the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill. It is also interesting to look back at some of the other comments that have been made over the years by members of the Liberal and National parties. Interestingly, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, stated in Parliament on 28 February 1980 that he thought it was 'in the best long term interests of Australia if people can move to other types of energy'. He went on further to state that people ought to recognise that if they could move on to electricity instead of LPG, in the long term that was in their interests both economically and nationally. It was a pleasure, then, to hear the views of the Liberal Party. It could be interesting to hear the National Party's views, to see whether they have moderated to some extent. My interest in this matter arises out of my involvement for five years as a member of the Bathurst City Council and my interest in energy matters in the Bathurst area. For four of the five years that I was on the Council I represented New South Wales local government on the Gas Advisory Committee of New South Wales and for two years I had the privilege to serve as the Deputy Chairman of that body. One of the pleasing aspects of the last 12 months in government has been the fact that we have had a Minister who I believe has been very approachable. Some of my New South Wales and Victorian colleagues, particularly the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who will be speaking later in the debate, have found that Senator Walsh as Minister for Resources and Energy has indeed been a very approachable person as honourable members from rural and provincial areas have tried to put over a very substantial case for a realistic position on the pricing of liquefied petroleum gas. As I have indicated, my interest arises principally because of my concern for the New South Wales local government gas industry. In the context of this very important Bill it is important to reflect upon what I believe are the special characteristics of local government LPG distribution in New South Wales, as we have heard some of the special characteristics of LPG distribution in Tasmania. In New South Wales since the 1960s a large number of town gas utilities have converted their gas works from the manufacture of gas from coal to the utilisation of either petroleum feedstocks, usually LPG, or the direct reticulation of natural gas. The changeover by Municipal Gas Works took place over a very short period. Indeed, it was encouraged to do so by the liquid fuels industry. In the case where LPG is processed to produce a gas which can be utilised by a town gas reticulation system, two major types of production plants are used: First of all, a reforming plant where LPG is used as a feedstock and is processed in association with steam and, secondly, a plant where LPG propane is mixed with air in controlled proportions to produce tempered LPG. The development of oil refining in Australia led to a local supply source of LPG, a very substantial supply source, as the honourable member for Bass has indicated, and a large scale distribution, both in bulk and in bottles, began throughout Australia in 1958. From that date until the price escalation in the 1970s that followed from the oil crises of that decade, LPG was considered to be the sawdust of the refining process-somewhat of a nuisance, as far as the oil companies were concerned, but great if one could get a few extra dollars for it. Otherwise, the easiest method of disposal for surplus LPG, as most people who are interested in the subject would be only too well aware, was to burn it off at the refinery. The local government industry has gone through tremendous traumas over the years because of the difficulties associated with the pricing of LPG. I believe that since these new measures were announced there has been a general acceptance -indeed, a willingness-to embrace the new measures by the local government gas distribution system in New South Wales, something with which I am familiar. It is important to reflect upon those measures this evening in the debate. From 28 March this year the basic wholesale price of LPG was set at the export parity price for Bass Strait propane operating on 1 March this year. The new export parity price of $244.75 represents a reduction of $60 a tonne on the wholesale price of LPG operating prior to 28 March. In addition to the new parity price arrangement, changes have been made to the pricing formula, with the intention of improving the stability of LPG prices. This situation is to be achieved by limiting increases in the wholesale price of LPG to a level not exceeding the increase in the fuel and light component of the consumer price index over a six month period and averaging the export parity price on a monthly cumulative basis beginning on 1 April this year. A major objective of these changes is the avoidance of wholesale LPG price rises similar to the 43 per cent increase that occurred during the 12 months ending 1 January 1983. Mr Brumby —Disastrous. Mr SIMMONS —As my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo says, it was a disastrous situation. The new pricing arrangements represent an attempt by the Federal Government to improve a number of difficulties associated with the sale and distribution of LPG which have primarily resulted from the instability and level of LPG prices. As a result of the new arrangements two important situations arise. firstly, unsubsidised consumers, such as feed stock and automotive consumers, receive a significant reduction in the price of LPG as a direct result of the reduction in the export parity price of $60 a tonne to the current level of $244.75 a tonne. This reduction in price represents an important reduction in costs to a sector which represents approximately 40 per cent of total LPG consumers throughout Australia. For example, this reduction in the wholesale price of LPG represents a reduction of approximately 3c a litre in the cost of automotive LPG. Secondly, a reduction in the degree of price instability also represents a positive influence on both consumers and certain LPG distributors, particularly local government distributors in New South Wales. In the case of consumers, it is important that the capital investment involved with conversion from other fossil fuels be accompanied by a situation where operating costs are readily able to be calculated. If the situation which occurred in the past where fluctuation in the wholesale price of up to 43 per cent in a 12 month period were allowed to continue, the viability of both conversion and continued use of LPG could in some cases by threatened. Problems of a serious nature also arose for local government LPG distributors as a result of unstable prices. Local government distributors currently purchase LPG at the unsubsidised price of $244 .75 a tonne. Upon sale to the consumer the subsidy of $20.31 is paid by State governments to local government distributors, which in turn receive a grant from the Federal Government. The grant paid by the Federal government reimburses the States for the subsidy payments made to local government LPG distributors. The major problem suffered by local government distributors has revolved around the budgetary problems associated with volatile LPG prices. Unstable LPG prices represent a situation which adversely affects the level of local goverment budgeting and administrative efficiency. However, the new pricing and subsidy arrangements will assist in reducing volatility in the price of LPG supplied to local government distributors. This will assist local governments to set the LPG retail price with increased accuracy when calculating the Budget estimates which in New South Wales usually commence in September each year. The accuracy with which local governments set the retail LPG rate is important because of the administrative and public relations value of reducing the frequency with which LPG retail prices change. Another factor which also enhances the efficiency of the budgetary process is the alteration by the Federal Government of the six monthly LPG adjustment dates to the beginning of October and April. The October date was selected following Federal Government consultations with local government representatives so that, as I mentioned previously, the new price level could be considered in formulating the Budget estimates beginning in September. It was my pleasure early in March of this year to lead to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) a deputation from the New South Wales Local Government Gas Advisory Committee, a committee that is ably led by my colleague and friend, Alderman Gordon Ravell from the Shoalhaven City Council. I take this opportunity to pay a great tribute to the work of the New South Wales Local Government Gas Advisory Committee and for its very positive support of the initiatives taken by the Federal Government. I take this opportunity also of thanking that Committee for affording me the privilege of delivering the key note address at its annual conference in Bega a few weeks ago. Without taking too much of the time of the House this evening, I wish to summarise the important points that I think need to be stressed about the new policy that is implicit in the Bill before the House. Firstly, domestic LPG prices will be made more stable and more predictable. Big price rises and rapid price fluctuations of the past will be eliminated. Such price fluctuations have caused consumer distress and have not been conducive to rational decisions on domestic LPG consumption. Secondly, future LPG price rises cannot exceed changes in the fuel and light component of the consumer price index. In other words, the real price of LPG to subsidised consumers will not rise under the new arrangements and the wholesale price to subsidised consumers will remain unchanged from 1 July 1983 to 30 September 1984. Thirdly, as far as Local Government is concerned-that is my interest in this matter-its efforts to convince the Government of the timing of price adjustments were obviously successful. I pay tribute again to Senator Walsh for heeding those representations. Consequently, such adjustments will now occur in the autumn and spring, rather than in the extremes of summer and winter. Despite some industry criticism about the starting point operating with the present subsidised price, the new policy has been very well received. It was enthusiastically received by the annual conference of the New South Wales Local Government Gas Advisory Committee. The Australian Gas Association, in a media release following the announcement, said this: . . . now that the decision has been made, the industry will make the best of the situation and will continue to provide top quality service to its consumers at lowest possible prices. This Bill presents an opportunity to ensure that a realistic pricing regime for liquefied petroleum gas remains in operation until March 1987, at which time the policy comes up for review. I believe the new proposal is a substantial improvement on the existing policy. As the honourable member for Bass acknowledged, people generally do not like subsidies. I assure honourable members that the New South Wales local government gas industry is keen to move away from the subsidy arrangements. However, quite obviously extreme escalations in prices occurred over a short period. I give all credit to the former Government for taking the initiative in 1981 in relation to the $80 a tonne subsidy. The industry would be happy to move away from the subsidy arrangements. It sees in the present proposal an opportunity to put in place a policy that will be acceptable to it as a distributor and to consumers who, after all, have to pay in the end. I congratulate the Minister for Resources and Energy on his initiatives. I commend the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill to honourable members. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(6.10) —The Liberal and National parties do not oppose either of these Bills, although we hold serious reservations about the approach the Government has taken in framing the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill, to which I will refer shortly. We welcome the move to correct an anomaly resulting from the Excise Tariff Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983. This legislation requires that the new excise duty rates calculated from changes to the consumer price index be rounded to the nearest decimal point. Increases in excise beyond the true level imposed by the change in the CPI have been imposed when the excise figure has to be rounded upwards. In the case of the brewing industry, for instance, the anomaly cost a total of $20m in February of this year. At a time when cost pressures are closing in on the profit margins of many Australian industries, such anomalies as this need to be identified and removed. There are two other aspects of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill. A standing provision will be inserted in the principal Act covering the imposition and application provisions which are normally included in Bills amending the Schedule to the Act. It also enacts the Excise Tariff Proposals (No. 1) 1984 which alters the excise duty rate on liquefied petroleum gas from 1 January this year. The LPG excise will rise from $48.57 per kilolitre to $49.23 per kilolitre . It follows the Government's policy announcement on 19 December last year and will result in an increase of $600,000 in Government revenue this year and $1.2m in a full year. The other Bill before the House seeks to amend the Liquefied Petroleum Gas ( Grants) Act 1980 to extend the subsidy scheme to 31 March 1987, although the subsidy will be in a form different from that set out from the original legislation introduced by the Liberal-National Party Government. The Bill has two aims: First, to set a new pricing formula for LPG which places major emphasis on stability of prices rather than parity with import or export prices and will over time ensure that the domestic price of LPG falls below the export parity price; and, secondly, to alter the existing Government subsidy arrangements for LPG by, first, immediately reducing the subsidy from $80 per tonne to $20.31 per tonne and, secondly, setting in place a mechanism that will reduce and eventually eliminate that subsidy. The legislation shifts the funding of a subsidy on LPG away from the Government and on to producers, using price control as a mechanism for forcing producers to subsidise consumers. Although honourable members on this side of the House will not be opposing the passage of legislation, we hold considerable reservations about the way in which the subsidy scheme has been fiddled. The handling of the LPG pricing and subsidy arrangement smacks of a political sleight of hand we have come to expect from this Government. A decision on the fate of the $80 a tonne subsidy should have been made public well in advance of the expiry of the former scheme on 31 March this year, but it was not. We well might ask why. The Government's decision to cut the subsidy by 75 per cent did not become public until Saturday afternoon, 24 March, the day voters in New South Wales went to the polls; and the timing of the announcement was no coincidence. The Government simply did not have the courage to reveal its gutting of the subsidy scheme earlier because it knew that there would be a backlash from gas consumers in New South Wales and people like the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), especially those in country areas who depend so heavily on this fuel. So, the Federal Labor Government waited until the news would be too late to affect the outcome of the New South Wales election. In a statement on 23 March, the eve of the New South Wales poll, I made it clear that the Federal Government was playing a cynical brand of politics in holding back its decision on the subsidy's future. I said that there were 500, 000 users of LPG, most of whom were in rural areas, who had been left in the dark over the subsidy's future, even though the scheme was due to expire in less than a week. I said at the time that it would be despicable if the Hawke Government was timing its decision in such a way as to minimise any political backlash should it tamper with this subsidy. With hindsight this is the only conclusion we can draw. The original LPG pricing mechanism announced on 8 April 1980 set the price of LPG equal to either export parity price or the January 1980 price of $205 per tonne indexed by the percentage change in the price of indigenous crude oil, whichever was the lower. This led to the price of LPG fluctuating roughly in line with movements in world prices of gas and oil. Under this arrangement the Labor Government would have been expected to approve a cut of around $50 a tonne in January this year, in line with the reduction of crude oil prices to take into account the changed value of the Australian dollar. It failed to do so. This Government chose to keep the price of LPG artificially high for three months until the expiry of the original subsidy scheme on 31 March this year. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) might well be dubbed the 'Six Million Dollar Man', because that is how much the consuming public would have saved had the Government stuck to the guidelines in the original legislation. What he succeeded in doing on behalf of his Government was to squeeze out of the consumers no less than $6m. The Government announced the slashing of this subsidy, a subsidy which applied to around 60 per cent of all LPG sold in Australia and in particular to the people of rural Australia, with the grand statement that no one would pay more and that some consumers might pay less than the current price. What it simply failed to say is that consumers were eligible for a price cut of that magnitude three months earlier. They saw nothing of the $6m to which they were fully entitled. They have in short been ripped off by a fiddle which the Government had hoped would quietly go unnoticed . The liquefied petroleum gas consumers know it. The people in the country know it. While the Government has been hiding behind a mask of concern for these people, it has been denying them a price cut which was rightfully theirs. It has made fools of many members of the Government, members of the Australian Labor Party. I know that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) in good faith made a pledge on behalf of the Labor Party prior to the last election, saying that the ALP was committed to at least a three year extension of the $80 a tonne Federal subsidy. I would not blame him; it has been a fiddle undertaken by the Minister and by the Government to squeeze out of consumers $6m at the expense of people mostly living in country areas. The business editor of the Age newspaper, Mr Terry McCrann, made this clear in a review published on 27 March when he said that the Minister announced: . . . that his new LPG pricing policy would mean that 'many consumers will pay less and that no consumers will pay more than they do under existing arrangements'. He continued by saying: 'As a matter of objective fact the comment was inerringly accurate. However, the statement failed to mention that if those existing arrangements had been properly followed on 1 January all-repeat, all- consumers would have paid substantially less for their LPG for the last three months'. The Government should have had the courage to introduce a $50 a tonne price cut on 1 January and then accept full responsibility for a 75 per cent cut to the subsidy three months later, with the effect of raising the price by about $60 a tonne. I quote the same article in the Age: 'These consumers will be excused if they digest the generosity of the Government with a considerable helping of salt'. The Government has claimed that its refusal to pass on the January price cut was 'in the interests of price stability'. But whatever justification it may claim for holding up the price for those consumers subject to the subsidy, the reality is that the hold-up was solely to mask the subsidy's pending demise. There is no credible reason why the unsubsidised sector of the market was not given the $50 a tonne cut in January of this year. And there is no credible reason why the subsidised consumers were denied for three months the benefits of a price cut that was rightfully theirs. I turn to a further aspect of this legislation before the House which also points up the Government's swindle of LP gas consumers. I refer to the revised pricing mechanism, which the Minister has hailed as a source of price stability in the future. We should closely examine how this stability will be achieved, and at whose expense. The Government has set a March 1984 price of LPG at the export parity price ruling at that time. Every six months the price will be adjusted on the basis of the average of the monthly export parity prices from 1 April 1984 to the month preceding the new price date. The increases in the wholesale price resulting from increases in parity prices when they occur are not allowed to exceed the increases in the fuel and light component of the CPI for the six months prior to the adjustment date. This will tend to smooth out fluctuations in price as the Government claims-there is no doubt about this-but it is a double-edged sword because in a situation of falling prices, as we have experienced over the last 12 months, the price will be held artificially high. I would agree that many consumers will probably benefit in the long term if the rules are not changed again because, in essence, this mechanism limits the rise in the domestic wholesale price of LPG to the lower of the increase in the world parity price or the increase in the fuel and light component of the CPI in the immediately preceding six months period. As the rises are non-cumulative over time, the rise in domestic LPG wholesale price will fall below the cumulative increase in both the world parity price and the CPI fuel-light component. It might be said that this is providing an implicit subsidy which will eventually help replace the one which has been all but taken away by the Hawke Labor Government. But who pays for it? In direct terms, the producers will pay as they are forced, by law, to sell the LPG at a price lower than they could get on the world market. In the long term, we will all probably pay due to the misallocation of the resources caused by this fiddle engineered by the Government. The only winner, of course, is the Government iself-by substituting a subsidy that the industry has to fund for one which the Government previously funded. We are seeing yet another case of the Government putting its short term revenue objectives before the long term interests of this nation. The Bill before the House has two principal objectives: Firstly, to phase out the government subsidy and, secondly, to even out price fluctuations. Despite the attractive language used by the Minister in his statement of 24 March, this legislation is bad news for the consumers and producers, while the Government quietly boosts its coffers. The only beneficiary of this iniquitious policy will be the Government. If the Government can use the domestic industry as a milch cow, what does it have in store for the export industry? Total LPG production in this country is running at close to two million tonnes annually, the bulk of which is coming from the Esso-BHP Bass Strait fields. The home market consumes around 500,000 tonnes or one quarter of the annual production. On the domestic market, producers will be held to a price below world levels, and it appears likely that this gap will increase over time. The Government will be moving away from its responsibilities while the producers will have to meet the cost of that world price gap. The Age commented on 28 March this year that these producers have every right to believe they have suffered a form of discrimination. The Government ought to come clean. It has been caught out fiddling this subsidy at the expense of LP gas producers and consumers. The Government has not shown any real concern for the industry and the consuming public, and especially for those consumers in country districts who find the cost of fuels so much higher than their city cousins. Where is the Government's concern for these people? The Government's actions on this matter have seriously disadvantaged people on farms and those living in regional centres who have no alternative fuel source. Now they are paying higher prices than should otherwise be the case for their gas, coming on top of the decision to abolish tax concessions encouraging conversion to LP gas in last year's mini-Budget. The people in the country will suffer from this policy when the subsidy phases out. The people of Australia will judge the Government ultimately for what it has done. I believe it is a discriminatory policy. The Government is prepared to place the interests of its own coffers before the welfare of the people it was elected to serve. I know that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will be speaking on this Bill later tonight. I suggest that Government members listen to his address. No one in this House knows more about the petroleum industry than Bruce Goodluck. No one in this Parliament has addressed himself more to the petroleum industry than the honourable member for Franklin. I am sure he will give the Government heaps. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, because I know he speaks from a base of such great and deep knowledge on this and other subjects. Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(8.02) —It is a pleasure to rise tonight to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill which are before the House. We have heard a number of speakers on this legislation, including an excellent speech from the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and a speech from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). The Deputy Leader of the National Party indicated that this legislation is of enormous significance to some 30,000 rural consumers of liquefied petroleum gas around Australia. I am absolutely and totally appalled at the lack of support and interest shown in this important legislation by members of the Liberal-National Party. When a quorum was called just two minutes ago I counted some 30 members of the Government in this House. Not one National Party member was here to listen to this constructive contribution to the debate. That is so typical of the attitude of members of the National Party to a whole range of concerns of people who live in rural Australia. In an excellent speech earlier today, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) succinctly pointed out the incompetence of National Party members when they were in government and their failure to represent the interests of primary producers when in opposition. As I have said, it is significant that, in the legislation before the House, the House is totally devoid of any representation or interest from National Party members. I want to concentrate my remarks on the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this legislation is to amend the principal Act which was introduced in 1980 by the previous Government. When that Act was introduced in 1980 it provided grants to the States for the purpose of reimbursing subsidy payments to registered LPG distributors. The legislation was introduced by the previous Government at that time. The reason it introduced it was that there had been a trebling of LPG wholesale prices over the previous 12 months; 1979-80. The principal features of that policy which was adopted by the previous Government in 1980 were as follows: The wholesale price was set at the lower of the export parity price, or the price then introduced, which was $205 a tonne. That was indexed for movements in the price of domestic crude oil. A subsidy of $80 a tonne was introduced, initially for a period of three years, and that was later extended for a further 12 months to March 1984 for household use. When the subsidy was introduced its stated aim was to provide consumers of LPG with temporary assistance to give them time to adjust to rising LPG prices and to convert to other energy resources. But I must say that, despite the stated aim of that subsidy and the honourable and genuine intention of the Government at that time to provide some assistance for LPG consumers, the policy of the previous Government in terms of LPG was vitally flawed in a number of areas. It had a number of disadvantages. Foremost amongst those disadvantages in the previous Government's policy was the total lack of price certainty and stability . That was manifested in massive price fluctuations in LPG over the period in question. By way of example, by early 1983 those disadvantages of the previous Government's policy had become a matter of enormous concern to LPG consumers throughout Australia. Despite that $80 per tonne subsidy which was paid by the Government the price of LPG to subsidised consumers rose by a massive 43 per cent between January 1982 and January 1983. It is clear, of course, that a rise of that magnitude in prices was less than acceptable to organisations such as the Australian Gas Association, the National Farmers Federation, which was representing some thousands of farmers throughout Australia consuming annually 32,000 tonnes of LPG and, of course, the 5,700 estimated LPG consumers throughout my electorate of Bendigo, the large number of consumers throughout my neighbouring electorate of Ballarat, so ably represented, and the- Mr Simmons —Fourteen thousand. Mr BRUMBY —And the 14,000 consumers of LPG throughout the New South Wales electorate of Calare. During the early months of 1983 that problem of price fluctations, in terms of the previous Government's policy was exacerbated by a further increase in the price in June of that year. I should point out that that increase was applied by our Government in accordance with the pricing mechanisms which had been established by the previous Government. I was very pleased, and I know that several of my colleagues representing rural electorates were also very pleased at the time, to learn that the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) announced in June that he would be undertaking a comprehensive review of LPG prices throughout Australia. As I have said, we welcomed that announcement. Many others welcomed the announcement at that time. The President of the Australian Gas Association, Mr Tibbey, said: . . . the Government must correct the present pricing mechanisms which permit . . . LPG prices to swing wildly with short-term aberrations in the international LPG market. That was the comment that was made at that time by the President of the Australian Gas Association, representing some hundreds of thousands of LPG consumers. Many submissions were made to the Government in the course of that review. I made very strong representations to the Minister arguing for a more stable and predictable base for LPG pricing. I am well aware that my colleagues, particularly my colleague in Victoria, the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), and my colleague in New South Wales, the honourable member for Calare, also made similar representations to the Minister. When we made those representations we emphasised very strongly that the previous Government's policy had caused undoubted consumer distress and was less than conducive to rational decisions concerning the domestic consumption of liquefied petroleum gas. Following that review our Government announced new pricing and subsidy arrangements which have taken effect from 28 March this year. Under the new policy announced by our Government many consumers gain a price reduction in LPG and no consumers pay more than they did under the previous Government's arrangements. I think that is an important point. Most importantly, all consumers are now protected from the wild price fluctuations that have occurred in LPG pricing over the past four years. The reduction in the wholesale LPG price from 28 March represents a reduction of about 3c a litre on automotive LPG . That will further improve the competitive position of automotive LPG relative to petrol and diesel fuel. In that context I think it is relevant to note some statistics concerning the use of LPG in motor vehicles. Some years ago, I am informed, there were only 250 automotive LPG outlets throughout Australia. Earlier this month, on 5 May when the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) launched the second edition of a booklet listing automotive LPG outlets throughout Australia, he said in his Press release that there were more than 650 automotive LPG outlets now throughout Australia. He did make the point, as I have made, that there were only 250 outlets operating in June 1980 and clearly there has been a great widening of the availability of LPG across Australia. Of course that is an important factor in promoting LPG as an alternative fuel. There are many benefits in the conversion of motor vehicles to LPG. The major reasons, of course, are that the fuel is cheaper than conventional petrol or diesel and most importantly it is free of lead and other emissions. Those members of the Parliament who are here tonight, including the honourable member for Flinders ( Mr Chynoweth) who is taking a keen interest in this debate, are well aware of the significance of automotive emission, particularly the sulphides and the leads from petrol-based fuels which are causing such serious air pollution problems in Melbourne at the moment. That matter has been given wide publicity in the media; it is a matter of concern to the Victorian State Government and I think it is a matter of concern to all people who live in Melbourne. Clearly one way of diminishing the effect of that automotive emission is for a greater conversion of motor vehicles to LPG gas. One final point that I would like to make on the issue of automotive LPG relates to pricing mechanisms for automotive LPG. This week I made representations to the Minister concerning the retail price of automotive LPG. While the effect of the Government's policy was to reduce the wholesale LPG price by some 3c a litre in many cases it is clear that retailers have not passed on that reduction in price. I for one am somewhat concerned that in Bendigo at the moment people are paying a price premium of somewhere near 30 per cent to 35 per cent for LPG as against consumers in the Melbourne metropolitan area. Those are just some points about the issue of automotive LPG consumption. I return to the major context of the Bill. There are two key elements to the Government's new LPG policy and those two key elements respectively are the pricing arrangements and the subsidy arrangements. I want to describe briefly the arrangements concerning each of those. In terms of price the Government decided that from 28 March this year the basic wholesale price of LPG will be set at the export parity price for Bass Strait propane as it was on 1 March, and that was $244.75 a tonne. That represents a significant reduction of about 20 per cent of what was the pre-March price of $304.44. Under the Government's new policy the price of LPG will be adjusted on 1 October and 1 April each year and it will be done on the basis of the average of the monthly export parity prices from 1 April 1984 to the month preceding the new price date. This averaging formula will contribute to stability of LPG prices by moderating any fluctuations in world LPG prices. Importantly in terms of price future increases in the wholesale price of LPG will however not exceed increases in the fuel and light component of the consumer price index for the latest six-month period prior to the adjustment date. That arrangement will be continued until March 1987. Under the previous policy traditional users of LPG did, of course, benefit from a subsidy at a fixed rate of $80 a tonne. Under the new policy a subsidy on LPG consumption will continue to apply until 31 March 1987 under the same eligibility and other conditions that presently exist. I do not want to go into immense detail on that but I will briefly run through the many benefits of the new pricing and subsidy arrangements compared with the arrangements that existed under the previous Government. Earlier in the evening my colleague the honourable member for Calare succinctly pointed to a number of the benefits of the new policy and I think it is worth elaborating on some of those. Firstly, under our policy no LPG consumers will pay more than they did under the previous arrangements, in fact many consumers will pay less. Secondly, domestic LPG prices will be made much more stable and more predictable. Big price rises and rapid price fluctuations of the past will be eliminated. Thirdly , future LPG prices cannot exceed changes in the fuel and light component of the consumer price index. Fourthly, a subsidy continues to be paid under the existing arrangements and conditions and, importantly, the real price of LPG to subsidised consumers has not risen, and will not rise, under the new arrangements. Fifthly, the wholesale price of the LPG to subsidised consumers will be unchanged for a period of 14 months. In other words it will be unchanged from 1 July 1983 to at least 30 September 1984 and that is a massive improvement on the policy of the previous Government when over one 12-month period, as I have said, we saw increases in the price of LPG of some 43 per cent. All of the repercussions that had for rational consumption and for our subsidised consumers will not occur in th future. Unless by some strange factor, the fuel and light component of the CPI were to increase by that amount, it is simply not possible for increases in price and fluctuations of that magnitude to occur under our policy. Automotive LPG consumers have already received a price reduction of 3c a litre in the wholesale price. They will benefit in the future from the greater stability of the new arrangements and automotive LPG will, importantly, continue to enjoy a substantial price advantage over petrol. The new arrangements ensure definite benefits for the 5,700 LPG consumers throughout my Federal electorate of Bendigo and they have been very strongly endorsed by the Australian Gas Association. When the Government's new policy was released later in March, the President of the Association at that time, Mr J. M. Shaw stated: The Government decision on the new Wholesale Pricing Policy for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) introduces a great improvement on the previous system. The arrangements will provide stability and predictability for producers, distributors and consumer. He went on: For too long the industry and consumers have suffered excessive variations in price because of the previous more direct link to export parity. The media release of the Australian Gas Association went on: Mr Shaw also welcomed the Policy for indexation of the subsidies price for traditional users of LP, which will adjust the price according to Australian energy price indicators rather than overseas factors. I have no hesitation at all in strongly supporting the two Bills before the House. As I have said the arrangements that we have introduced in terms of LPG pricing are far superior arrangements to those which operated under the previous Government. Under the arrangements we have introduced there will be much greater stability and predictability in prices for consumers. That is so essential to all consumers trying to make longer term decisions about minimising the cost of energy in terms of things such as cooking and heating their homes. The great disasters of the previous Government's policies such as price movements of 43 per cent in one year simply cannot exist under our policy. The price of LPG will effectively be tied to the price movements of other energy sources incorporated in the light and fuel index of the consumer price index. As I said this is a superior arrangement. It is to the benefit of producers, consumers and distributors throughout Australia. I commend the Bill very strongly to the House . Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.21) —I will talk specifically to the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill. It has two aims. the first aim is to set a new pricing formula for liquefied petroleum gas which places major emphasis on stability of prices rather than parity with import or export prices and which will over time ensure that the domestic price of LPG falls below the export parity price. The second purpose of the Bill is to alter the existing Government subsidy arrangements for LPG by firstly, immediately reducing the subsidy from $ 80 a tonne to $20.31 a tonne and secondly, setting in place a mechanism that will reduce and eventually eliminate that subsidy. The original LPG pricing mechanism announced in April 1980 set the price of LPG equal to either the export parity price or the January 1980 price of $205 a tonne, indexed by the percentage change in the price of indigenous crude oil, whichever was the lower. There have always been complications with the pricing of LPG as there have been with petrol. I think it is a duty of all governments, of whatever persuasion, to give the consumers in Australia a fair chance and a fair opportunity to a fair price. In essence we in the Opposition support the Bill and we hope that this will eventuate. LPG production in this country is running at close to 200 million tonnes annually, the bulk of which is coming from the Esso-BHP Bass Strait fields. The home market consumes about 500,000 tonnes, or one-quarter of the annual production of LPG. Of course, each State is different. I come from Tasmania. We have specific problems there. I support the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) in what he had to say. I compliment the honourable member for Bass who has done a lot to bring to the notice of the consumers in Tasmania the problems they have and the problems that domestic and industrial users of LPG have. I am sorry to have to duplicate to a degree what the honourable member for Bass said, but I think it is important to repeat that there is no natural gas in Tasmania and that there is no coal to speak of. Mr Groom —None discovered. Mr GOODLUCK —No, none has been discovered. Of course, there is no hydro- electricity. Mr John Brown —I beg your pardon. Mr GOODLUCK —There is some hydro-electricity but it has been reduced by the Federal Government which sits here today. As a consequence we in Tasmania have to look to alternatives. I think the Minister should stay with koala bears. Mr John Brown —They are not bears; they are marsupials. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry, they are marsupials. The only way that people in Tasmania can use LPG gas is firstly, as reticulated gas, and secondly, by gas cylinders. As we know there is large excise on LPG and, of course, a high cost of freight across Bass Strait. We must admit that with a population of 420,000 people there is a low volume. Of course there is a difficulty. We appreciate the difficulty and the high cost of bringing the LPG across Bass Strait. When Tasmanians make a comparison of what people in Japan are able to buy their LPG for, a lot of them ask a lot of questions. They say to me: 'Bruce, why is it that a person in Japan has the ability to boil the billy cheaper than the billy that can be boiled in Tasmania?' That is a very good comparison. We start to ask what really occurs with LPG. Why is so much LPG exported to Japan? Why is LPG used in other countries when in fact we could use LPG in Australia as an alternative to petrol? The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) said tonight that LPG can be used as an alternative to petrol. Of course it can. At about a 10 per cent reduction in power it is clean. There is, of course, less wear on spark plugs and oil does not need changing as much. It can be used, and should be used, more in automotive areas in Australia. If we go overseas to a place such as Seoul, with a population of 10 million people, we can see that every car has LPG. Of course, one starts to wonder and ask what is happening in Australia. Why do we not make more use of the LPG that we are able to produce? Why do we not start using the capacity that we can produce? Why do we not store it for emergencies? Why do we not talk to the manufacturers of motor vehicles? The Datsun company tried it but marketed it incorrectly. That company produced an LPG car when it should have produced a dual purpose car that could run on petrol or on LPG. That company's marketing strategy was all wrong. Of course, people in Australia thought: 'We cannot fill up with LPG so we will not buy the Datsun'. Motor vehicle manufacturers in Australia such as Ford, General Motors-Holden's Ltd give options on gear boxes, differentials, the colour of the car, the seating and all the other things but not an option of LPG or petrol. Why not? Mr Hunt —They must have shares in gasoline. Mr GOODLUCK —That is right. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), a nice fellow, talks about theoretical things; and talks about the future, but we have to be very practical in this world. We should talk about the 16 new industries that have not come to Tasmania. It is useless talking about these things, we have to act. We have to get these things in place so that they can be beneficial to all Australians in the future. My good friend, the honourable member for Bendigo, mentioned that LPG outlets have increased from 250 to 650. That is not enough. There have been LPG outlets in Holland, England and many other countries for many years where it is possible to fill up with LPG beside the petrol pump. Yet we have people in Australia who say that LPG is not safe. After all countries such as Japan and South Korea use it in their motor vehicles. We have cynics in Australia saying that it is not safe and that it spoils the motor vehicle engines. Mr John Brown —Have you got LPG in your car, Bruce? Mr GOODLUCK —No, I have five children. I cannot afford it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has been persistently interjecting on the honourable member for Franklin. I ask him to desist. I call the honourable member for Franklin. Mr GOODLUCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. You are handling the situation beautifully. I will mention the price of LPG in Tasmania. The very important point that we in Tasmania try to make is that we are disadvantaged. We would like to be self- sufficient. We would like not to have to come to other governments and ask them to help us. Unfortunately, we are an island and we have disadvantages and difficulties in being able to compete with the larger markets. I mentioned the volume of LPG into Tasmania. I ask whether honourable members opposite could tell me the price of LPG for a motor vehicle in Tasmania at the moment. Honourable members probably would not know. I do not mean to be unfair. Mr Brumby —Thirty cents a litre? Mr GOODLUCK —No, it is more than 30c a litre. Mr Groom —They probably have no interest, Bruce. Mr GOODLUCK —No, I do not want to be rude to them. The honourable members are interested. I think they are genuinely trying to say to me: 'We understand your point'. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. The cost of LPG is roughly 22c a litre in Melbourne and 34c a litre at the moment in Hobart. Of course the taxi proprietors are complaining that they spent the money on the conversion. Mr Hunt —Why do we hate Tasmanians? Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member took the words out of my mouth. The price of 34c a litre is excessive. The price of a 45 kilogram cylinder of gas at the moment is roughly $34.40. A litre of petrol in Tasmania at the moment is roughly 52c. When we were in government we said that the price of LPG should stay at roughly 50 per cent of the price of petrol. So of course people converted on that basis. They thought that LPG would be a proposition over a period, that the cost could be amortised and that it would be a good idea to convert. But unfortunately it has all gone out of kilter and the people who have converted in Tasmania, such as taxi proprietors, are saying to me 'Bruce, it is not worth it. We have a 10 per cent reduction in power. It has cost us money to convert' et cetera. Mr Cadman —It costs a thousand dollars. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, and now a litre of LPG costs 35c a litre. Mr Cadman —Who did that? Mr GOODLUCK —I could explain it, but I do not have time because I want to go on to make a few points and try to tell the people of Australia about the fallacy surrounding LPG. They are told that they cannot use it in their motor vehicles, for cooking or for heating. That is a lot of rot. Liquefied petroleum gas can be one of the best means of power, of heating and of cooking, et cetera. And we have not made the best use of it in Australia. We should have. I think that everybody in this House would agree with me. I am sure that honourable members would be interested in a few interesting points about LPG. I am sure that the people of Australia who are listening tonight-and I hope my wife is-would be most interested. The amount of LPG production from Bass Strait in 1975 was 1,260,202 tonnes. Exports exceeded 1,180 ,000 tonnes of which over 1,113,000 tonnes were shipped to Japan at a price-I think I did a price on that at the time-of between 5c and 6c a litre. So, of course, the Japanese in their motor vehicles were laughing. They were laughing all the way to the cookers-laughing everywhere. Yet we in Australia did not put our policy in place. I make another very interesting point. Liquefied petroleum gas was initially imported into Australia from California in bottled form in the mid-1930s. Transport and landing costs, however, raised its price to the Australian consumer to an uneconomical level despite its utilitarian value. I make the point that even in that year we imported it from America and thought it was worthwhile. But now we are producing so much and we are not making the best possible use of it for Australian consumers. Examples were given of the domestic and commercial uses of LPG. Where fixed domestic off-takes are beyond the reach of reticulated gas or electricity, LPG is used domestically for water and space heating, refrigeration, lighting, air- conditioning and as a fuel for cooking. Domestic cookers, ranging from small single burners to complete cooking stoves, can be fired by LPG. It is also used for camping, caravaning and boating. It is supplied in cylinders varying in size . It can be used for all those domestic purposes. It can also be used by industry. Industry uses LPG in a large number of diverse ways which can be grouped as: Heating in processes which require careful control, such as glass and ceramics, electronics and fine mechanics; heating directly where the quality of the combustion gases is important, such as in milk drying, biscuit manufacture and baking; producing in the metallurgical industry of protective atmospheres for metal cutting and heating. Then there are the advantages of LPG as an automotive fuel. They include longer engine life, particularly in respect of cylinder bore wear during cold starting. This is because LPG, being gaseous, when it enters the cylinders, does not wash oil off the walls. However, it is necessary to ensure that suitable valves and valve seats are used, generally stellited or similarly hardened. Because people do not understand LPG, do not study it enough, they think that it would not be advantageous to use as an alternative fuel. As a consequence of longer engine life, the effective life of lubricating oil is longer as a result of the absence of fuel dilution. Deposits on surfaces and spark plugs are also reduced, owing to the cleaner combustion characteristics of the fuel. Consequently, the frequency of top overhaul and plug servicing can be reduced. Thus car maintenance is reduced. Of course, any economy we can make in regard to the family car is terribly important today. Liquefied petroleum gas means easier cold starting because of the gaseous nature of the fuel. As LPG enters the engine in gaseous form, the mixture distribution to the cylinders is more often uniform than with motor spirit. Consequently, engines operating on LPG can utilise leaner mixtures, giving improved economy. Exhaust emissions are greatly reduced in LPG engines compared with those running on motor spirit. The simplest type of LPG fuel conversion will reduce significantly the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon exhaust emission, making the atmosphere cleaner. Today, when our cities are growing, we have to be careful to reduce air pollution. That is why the Japanese and the South Koreans are using LPG. They are advanced in what they are doing with LPG. We in Australia are stupid. We should have been following their lead years ago but we have not. We should start to do so. The Minister for Science and Technology is a good fellow. This is the sort of thing he should be looking at, rather than talking about valves and the 16 new industries. He has the brains and the capacity to be able to put these sorts of things in place. He would be able to save the consumers of Australia, and the pensioners of Tasmania, real money. That is the important thing. We have to have people with a bit of practical knowledge plus the brainpower of the Minister for Science and Technology who can theorise. But we have to put such things in place . That is what we should be doing with LPG in this country today-building storage capacity, using production and using LPG and forgetting about some of the rot that goes on concerning its use. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.37) —It is always enjoyable to follow the speeches of honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I thank him for his remarks about the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) regarding the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1984. The Minister for Science and Technology does indeed have brains. He has chosen to join this Government and this Party. That is the most intelligent decision one could make. However, in fairness to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) I should respond to him. He raised the question as to why in January 1984, when the Government had the opportunity to reduce the price of liquefied petroleum gas, it did not act upon it. In fact, the reality is that in the Budget Speech last year we made an announcement that we were reviewing the process of pricing. As a consequence, of course, that process was set in train. It would not have made sense to make a piecemeal decision at that stage. It was more sensible to come up with the legislation we are dealing with tonight. With respect to the legislation on the pricing of LPG, the honourable member for Franklin talked about making things cheaper for people. In fact, this legislation does that. That is why we are pleased that the Opposition supports it. I take the opportunity to get clearly on the record that this legislation establishes a degree of price stability and a reduction in price. That is exactly what the honourable member for Franklin called for. That has been pointed out very clearly by members on this side of the House, particularly by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). What we are talking about in this place tonight is the structure of the pricing of one of the basic resources; that is, LPG. That is the basic issue. We can sum up very briefly the announcement that was made by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) when talking about the pricing structure of LPG: The LPG pricing policy will mean that many consumers will pay less and no consumers will pay more than under the previous arrangements. That is the first point. The second point is that consumers will be protected from wild fluctuations in prices. They are the two overarching goals of this legislation. Later I will talk about some of the structural factors in relation to this legislation. The legislation is about establishing some degree of price predictability, and in this case lower prices. The second thing the legislation does is establish some degree of price stability. Already the honourable member for Bendigo and the honourable member for Calare have spoken about price instability. Clearly, when we look at price instability we see that the Consumers of LPG have had to experience great movements in price over time. I will talk about those in a moment. The National Farmers Federation, industrial users and consumers experienced that fluctuation in prices. We as a government are responsbile for trying to produce some degree of stability and predictability in economic management. One of the things that I believe has come about since we took office in March 1983 is a degree of predictability and stability. In the Budget last year we made announcements with regard to the indexing of excises and this legislation brings that into effect for LPG. I will talk about the particular calculation and the mechanism for setting that in place. It is important to point out, as the honourable member for Bendigo pointed out previously, that there could be no better example of price instability under the previous Government's arrangements than the fact that the wholesale price to subsidised consumers rose by 43 per cent from 1 January 1982 to 1 January 1983-a 43 per cent increase. That is not the sort of price instability that this economy can tolerate; nor the sort of price instability that we should ask consumers or industrial users to tolerate, because it produces further instability in economic performance. Clearly, we inherited an unsatisfactory situation. We have tried to produce some stability. It is important for the population in Western Australia and my electorate of Stirling. LPG production at the refinery in Western Australia in 1982-83 was 38,000 tonnes. That figure was part of an Australian total of 365,000 tonnes. LPG sales in Western Australia in 1982-83 totalled about 50,000 tonnes. Automotive use accounted for 10 per cent. The honourable member for Franklin spoke about that point. Visitors to Japan will recognise that there is an overwhelming environmental demand for LPG. One of the costs that the Japanese are not prepared to pay, of course, is the increasing social cost of pollution; nor should we be prepared to pay that cost. I endorse the honourable member's remarks and the remarks of the honourable member for Bendigo. They were quite accurate in saying that there is a great environmental plus in increasing the use of LPG. I believe the communities in Melbourne and Sydney would recognise that point. Hobart and Perth are blessed to some extent by having relatively clean air, but it is not something that we can afford to ignore and it was a good point to be made. As I said, automotive use accounted for 10 per cent. Domestic use accounted for 33 per cent. That is a very important area. One of our goals is to produce some degree of stability and predictability for consumers. Industrial use accounted for 40 per cent and petrochemical use for 16 per cent. The subsidy applies particularly to domestic and industrial users. But I will say more about that shortly. I have talked about the end users of LPG. Some examples of price instability in LPG show that we really had to intervene to try to reduce the degree of fluctuation. I will cite some figures that will, I believe, illuminate the debate. For example, taking movements from July to December of 1980, the designated wholesale price was $227.63 a tonne. That was an increase from $205 a tonne in April-June of 1980-an 11 per cent change in the wholesale price. The table further shows that in January to June of 1981-that is the next six-month period-it increased again to $250.23 a tonne. That is a 9.9 per cent change. But in the next six-month period-this is what made it very difficult for business and consumers-from July to December 1981 the price fell to $228.88 a tonne, an 8 .5 per cent reduction. The problem was that external factors impacted enormously on domestic prices. Some external factors will arise from the disastrous conflict between Iran and Iraq in the Gulf. What we are doing with this manoeuvre is trying to reduce the domestic impact of such international events. There were further fluctuations, in the next six-month period, from January to June 1982. The price fell to $200.15 a tonne, a 12.6 per cent reduction. From July to December 1982 it moved up to $220.09 a tonne-a 10 per cent increase. From January to June 1983-the first six months of last year-the figure was $251. 85 a tonne, a 14.4 per cent increase. Finally, from July 1983 to March 1984 the price increased to $304.44 a tonne, a 20.9 per cent increase. This occurred under the previous arrangements. As a result of this legislation and the enabling regulations, we operated in March 1984 at a price of $244.75 a tonne. Obviously, we are trying to reduce those wild fluctuations. The figures I have cited indicate to people who are listening and to honourable members what fluctuations occurred. It is very difficult in those circumstances to manage industry, and it is certainly difficult for end users and consumers. One of the points that has already been made in the debate is that the reluctance of people to switch over to LPG is because of those wild fluctuations in prices. One can understand that point. We are trying, in effect, to establish a degree of price stabilty. I have talked about price instability and I have cited some figures which show the fluctuations in prices. Clause 5 of the Bill inserts a new section 6A (4). From 28 March 1984 the basic wholesale price will be set at the export parity price for Bass Strait propane which was in force on 1 March 1984. That price was $244. 75 a tonne. When that decision was made by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) there was in effect a reduction of 20 per cent or $60 a tonne on the current price. We have inherited wildly fluctuating prices. We are trying to set in place a mechanism which will reduce those fluctuations. How will we fare in terms of future movements in price? I have indicated what the price was in March 1984. How will we go about adjusting prices in the future? What is the adjustment mechanism? This is the point at which I need to talk about the indexing to which I referred earlier in my speech. The price of LPG will be adjusted on 1 October and 1 April each year on the basis of the average of the monthly export parity prices to the month preceding the new price date. Future price movements will not exceed increases in the fuel and light component in the regimen of the consumer price index. In other words, we recognise that we need to ameliorate influences on the prices of LPG by referring back to a basic price structure. We are referring back to the structure of the consumer price index. That makes sense. If a person is in business and he is trying to predict movements in terms of his budgetary strategy each year, it is very important to be able to get an estimate of these costs. It is much easier under this Government because the prices and incomes accord has introduced a degree of economic stability. If a manager can say: 'This is the kind of movement we will get in the CPI automatically, in terms of that costing component of using LPG in an industrial application, he can predict the sort of costs he will be up for. As a consequence, industry users will be encouraged to use LPG because it has a much more stable price movement. Obviously, as other honourable members have said, if there is a reluctance to use a commodity it is not only because it might be scarce in supply but also, particularly, because of wild fluctuations in price, and that has been the experience. I have referred to the large movements in price because of external factors under the previous Government's policy. Under this indexing arrangement we will be able to begin to tie some costs in business terms to some predictable movements, and that makes sense. It is sensible government policy and sensible business policy. It is something that we are prepared to put in place. From a consumer's point of view it is also valuable because it is helpful to people doing household budgeting, if in advance, they can predict the costs of LPG. Therefore, there is an incentive to use it. The honourable member for Bendigo spoke about the involvement of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. We as a government are concerned about environmental factors. Obviously we want to see more people using LPG because of the social gains and the social disbenefits of using other petroleum products, particularly those with a high lead content. If there are social gains to be reaped, we would want consumers and industrial users to feel more confident about using such a commodity as LPG. I suggest to the House that this price arrangement and capacity to predict movements in advance will mean that both consumers and industrial users will be encouraged to use LPG. In my view and, I believe, in the view of the Australian community, that is good government and sensible management. It is good business management and it is good household management. That is the nub of this legislation. To sum up, this legislation is about offering cheaper and more predictable LPG to consumers and to industrial users. It enables us to do it because the pricing mechanism has a predictive capacity as we are using an indexed arrangement in relation to the consumer price index. I believe this legislation is sensible and sound in terms of economic management and business consumer management. It is with pleasure that I commend it to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.51) —I do not know whether the salary that is paid to the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) is good enough. I believe that he was in the accountancy profession previously. He should be in the sales profession because on his presentation a moment ago he would be able to sell the proverbial iceblock to an Eskimo. But I am afraid that if I were the housewife listening to his story, particularly a remote area housewife who had absolutely no choice but to use liquefied petroleum gas for her cooking and had been doing so for many years, I would have a little doubt about his sales pitch if I sat down and analysed it. What he has told her is good for her is not to have wild fluctuations in price but to have higher prices. That is what he has offered her . I think the average housewife would take a bit of a bump in her budget occasionally if at the end of a 12-month period she could see that her gas purchases were $60 a tonne cheaper than they will be under this arrangement. That is the reality of the situation. The reality is that the Government has taken back a subsidy of $60 a tonne from its arena and has taken the windfall of the drop in international pricing, which assists it in the setting of world parity prices, to arrange the currently low pricing structure. Yes, the consumer is no worse off but the consumer in this arena, the remote area consumer, has lost another area of government support. That is the reality of it. The Government can put that into any clothes it likes. It is clearly doing this as best it can. Because the price has not gone up the people believe that in this day and age it is not a bad thing to start with. A previous speaker said that the farming communities and others are not all that keen on subsidies anyway. I agree that it is not the Government's role to subsidise every product, but we have to look at what the Government sneaks out the back door from that same remote area housewife. We find that for some unknown reason it has imposed a levy of some $48 now indexed to $49.23 per kilolitre. Although I have never really worked it out, I guess a kilolitre is 1, 000 litres. Would a thousand litres of LPG weigh half a tonne? If it did, by strange coincidence the excise that the Government collected would be $80 a tonne. If it just happened to be $60 a tonne, the Government would be getting back an extra $60. So the housewife gets a pretty raw deal but we will send out the honourable member for Stirling. I am sure that in his quiet, persuasive way he would convince many of them, particularly in the electorate of Stirling, that they had a good deal. Alternatively, of course, the Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown), who is handling this Bill in this place, could get Mr Hogan to put a few advertisements on the television screen. I am sure that by that means also the Government would be able to convince some ladies. Hoges would probably do an even better job than the honourable member for Stirling. The fact is that the ladies who have to turn on their gas are losing money in comparison with their situation under the previous arrangement. The Government has taken money from them. It has done so in two areas: it has reduced its subsidy-that is a fact-and it has increased its excise under this new method of taxation by stealth. I will deal with that a little further in my remarks on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill. This is a serious business. We know also that the consumer price index is to come into this matter. As the Government has done with its fuel freight subsidy, it has implemented a reserve form of indexation under which, little by little, the CPI will further erode the assistance that the Government gives to remote area dwellings. If one went into the average remote area house and said to the housewife, 'I am going to take something away', I am sure one of the last things she would want taken away would be her gas stove. I have recollections of the remote areas of the north-east of Western Australia prior to LPG. I know what those people put up with. In some of those areas even wood was difficult to find . The Government is hitting people in an area of great importance to them. If one happens to have a business or industry in those areas-I still have an involvement in such an arena in hotels and caravan parks-where large quantities of gas are used, one finds that it is a major cost and a major concern. I say to another person representing, as he claimed earlier tonight, people who are stuck with LPG-the people from Tasmania-that it does not matter what the Government has done and how good it looks; it has cost them money. The Government has taken $60 a tonne off the people and has increased the excise. That is the reality of the situation and that is what we are confronted with in the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill. Nevertheless, it could have been worse, I guess. Country people have certainly been hit the worst by many of the Government's other decisions. I wish to take a little time, particularly as few other speakers have done so, to look at the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill, the other Bill with which we are dealing. This concerns the issue of resolving the great problems that the Government created with its proposal to index excise. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Stirling tell us how all these things are good business. There are little increases all the time but nobody gets the opportunity to argue about them when it happens. The history of excises as they apply to fuels, liquor and everything else has always been one of the Government making a decision, probably at Budget time. Of course, the representatives of the people gathered in this place-I am talking about the properly elected ones, not the friends of the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) whom he invited on one occasion-have an opportunity to expose that situation to the general public. Consequently, governments are somewhat constrained in their budgeting knowing full well that they can be criticised. But when they can sneak excises up in relatively small amounts every six months, knowing the politics of that, they know that is easier to get away with. In the process of the Government doing that we had a double whammy. The Government was not even prepared, considering this regular indexation and the size of these things, to extend the decimal point past two places. In the process of that we had a rounding. With this Government, being the good government that the honourable member for Stirling told us it is, there was no rounding downwards; it was always a rounding upwards. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has already told us that the liquor industry alone in the very short period for which this indexation proposal has been in place has had to find an additional $20m. We continue to refer to the liquor industry because that is the industry which is excised and pays a cheque for it. But of course, that is not the end user of the product. The end users are the hard workers of Australia that the Labor Government says it has such a close affinity with. Of course, it is principally the beer drinkers of Australia who have to pay this money. I just wonder whether the Minister would admit that the Government during the period of his custodianship, outside of the costs that the Government has imposed upon the community by its indexation process, knocked off an extra $20m out of people's pay packets. More importantly, the Government is not going to give it back. I would have been supporting this Bill and congratulating the Government if it had not only resolved the problem but also made provision to give the money back , the money that one might say was stolen from the drinkers of Australia. Of course, the motorist, the Sunday driver and all those other people, many of them having great need for a vehicle because of infirmity or whatever-even those people who have to climb on a bus-have had to pay this extra money because of the device the Government has used. It is taxation by stealth. In fact, that is what this Bill is all about. Honourable members have heard me say time and again that there are four words that describe a good tax, and they are: Simplicity, certainty, equality and visibility. When governments learn that the only place to impose a tax is where the people can see it, we will get good government in Australia. I do not say that by way of message only to the present Government. I sincerely hope that some of my colleagues also hear it. I think that to do that is really truly honest government. Mr Simmons —Did you learn that at Thredbo? Mr TUCKEY —No, I have known that for a long time. I have been lecturing on that point for a long time. If the honourable member criticises it, he is not an honest politician. They are the words that describe a good tax, and 'visibility' is the No. 1 word. An honest government is prepared to show the people where it taxes them so they can judge the Government on that taxation. I am sorry to say that the present Government is even worse than the previous Government in that regard, because almost all of this Government's options for increasing taxation have been imposed in a stealthy fashion. The Government snuck into the communications area and put on $150m. The people are only just starting to realise what has happened to licence fees on two-way radios and items of that sort. That is a disgraceful way for a government to get some money. That is not the way in which a government should impose taxes, any more than is this indexation process that it has introduced in respect of fuel and liquor. Let us look at what this indexation process has meant to certain sections of the community. Of course, the Bill also provides for the cessation of the practice of rounding off the amount of tax payable. As I say, it fails to give the money back. The other issue of great concern also in relation to this indexation process is the fact that the Government has not increased the rebate on excise that was available to farmers in relation to fuel used in tractors and other implements used for seeding. Since the present Government has been in office, the excise on distillate, because of indexation, is now 9.397c a litre. The rebate that was granted by the previous Government has been kept at 7.155c a litre. Suddenly a farmer who never before had been called upon to pay excise on distillate is paying 2.242c a litre. In fact, the National Farmers Federation estimates that this excise has cost farmers $24.9m-that is almost $25m-that they have never had to pay before. Compare that figure with the figure for the fertiliser subsidy- the big handout that everybody says the farmers get-which is $51m. In other words, the Government has taken back half the fertiliser subsidy which the farmers were not getting anyway because it was going to the Australian National Line. Honourable members might like to compare that situation with that applying to drought relief. Farmers received only $45.4m in drought relief in 1983-84. Just how quickly can the Government take the money back? It is doing pretty well out of tonight's little effort-$60 a tonne on liquefied petroleum gas. I have pointed out the effect that the Government's indexation proposal will have. It will affect all those people in country areas who are the consumers of LPG and distillate. Then, of course, there is the humble beer. I might say that country people do not have available to them the entertainment opportunities that are available to people in the cities. Even the humble beer is more important to country people than city people. Country people cannot go to the type of entertainments which do not attract tax and which are so frequently available to city people. They have to go to the pub because that is their only form of entertainment, and that is one of the most highly taxed areas. In that regard it is interesting to note that on 9 April 1981 I drew the attention of the Parliament to just what happens to a $2 bottle of whisky, even after the Government has had some fun with it. I will not bore the House with all the details, but the fact is that the price of a $2 bottle of bonded whisky increased to $12.50 by the time it got to the retailer. Of that $12.50, $8.81 was made up of various government taxes and charges; in other words, the Government takes 420 per cent of the bonded cost of that bottle of whisky. That amount of tax is now to be indexed because, according to the Treasurer, the Government was not catching up quickly enough; the Government was not getting its bit. I can tell honourable members that the liquor industry and its customers are thoroughly fed up with this taxation by stealth. They have had enough of it. Of course, in one respect the proposal before the House tonight will save the public a little money. As I said, I would feel much better about that had it given back the money that it got by a device without even really trying. I think it is time that this Government or any government was prepared to make admissions of this nature. There are plenty of ways in which this money could be refunded to the people who paid it. The subject of this legislation is indexation. The Government even chose to index some excise duties raised for a specific purpose, namely the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund. It still refuses point blank to reverse that decision. The Opposition has given it the opportunity to do so by moving an amendment to the latest piece of legislation that dealt with the Fund. That amendment provided the Government with an opportunity to reverse its decision and to ensure that at least the money raised from the indexation of those excise duties was used to improve our roads and assist people in remote areas. The Government will not do that either. At the same time, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is writing to councils in my electorate to the effect that the reason he cannot put the money into that Fund is that the legislation will now allow it. It is about time he stopped writing letters in those terms. We are talking about honest government and visible taxation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me the time to complete these few remarks. It has been said that 500,000 people are consumers of LPG. I think they will be reasonably satisfied because the Government has not tried to get more money out of them. However, they should not believe that the Government has been kind to them, because in fact the Government has reduced its level of support by $60 a tonne. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.08) —in reply-I offer a few closing remarks to the debate. I commence by offering my congratulations to the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) for their reasoned response to the debate on behalf of the Government. The honourable member for Stirling even elicited some praise from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I do not know whether that is the kiss of death or a highly valued form of flattery. Nevertheless, the honourable member for Stirling managed to achieve that. I think that the contributions from Opposition members in supporting the Bills have been reasonable, with the possible exception of the stridency of a couple of Tasmanian members who, in usual form, exhibited the great siege mentality of Tasmanians. I suppose that is fairly understandable. The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill introduces pricing and subsidy arrangements that became effective from 28 March. I think that the speakers from the Government side have pointed out very clearly that the intention of the Bill is to provide a more stable price regime, which of course is of obvious benefit to all consumers. The major reduction in price to unsubsidised consumers is incipient in the Bill, while subsidised consumers are assured now of greater price stability in the future. The most important factor is that all consumers, no matter where they are located, will be protected from wild fluctuations that featured during the previous Government. In fact, in the period from 1 January 1982 to 1 January 1983 the price of liquefied petroleum gas increased by 43 per cent. The outlook for stable and predictable prices under the arrangements of the present Government will enable industry to invest in LPG facilities, which is the point that was made by Government members. Business will now at least have the protection of knowing what the forward policy is, and that will encourage people to invest in LPG facilities, without the uncertainties and the distortions that were created by the previous arrangements. In fact, these arrangements will ensure that LPG can realise its potential in the Australian energy scene. There were a few points made by some members of the Opposition to which I should refer. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) complained that the new pricing or subsidy arrangements were unfair to Tasmania. Firstly, I point out that the Bill was about the subsidy being provided by the present Government and nothing to do with pricing arrangements. The Government in fact sets a uniform wholesale price for liquefied petroleum gas at the points of supply. The retail prices paid by consumers will include obviously the cost of transport and handling from the point of supply to the point at which the product reaches the consumer. By its very nature LPG is very difficult to transport and, of course, is costly because of that. Retail prices could be expected to reflect that, and of course they do. The point made by the Tasmanians was that it was unfair that the cost of LPG gas to Tasmanian users was higher than the cost in other parts of Australia. That is not correct, because the price of LPG in other remote parts of Australia, particularly in western New South Wales, as the honourable member for Calare would attest, and in Western Australia, as I am sure the honourable member for Stirling would agree, is in fact higher than it is in some parts of Tasmania. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), in his normal rambling and hysterical fashion, screamed about Tasmania being disadvantaged, not even realising that LPG is carted to Tasmania across Bass Strait by the ship called the Island Gas and that the current pricing arrangements for the transfer of LPG across Bass Strait were instituted by his own Government in its desperate period of government. We heard nothing from the honourable member for Franklin in those years but, as is his wont, every time that any Bill appears in this House on which he gets the opportunity to speak he screams about this Government's unfairness to Tasmania. In fact under the subsidy scheme we have introduced Tasmanians are far better off, but it would be very difficult to get that into his thick little head. I hope that he is listening and that he can understand that. The honourable member for Bass suggested that Tasmanian consumers of LPG should get more subsidy than consumers in the rest of Australia. As a former Minister for Administrative Services he should have known that constitutionally that is impossible and that there would be extraordinary difficulties in having selective excises or selective subsidies for various parts of Australia. I would have thought that a former Minister of the Crown-not a very distinguished one- should at least have known that. The honourable member for O'Connor berated us about the indexation of excise and claimed that rates were always rounded upwards. To put the record straight for him I point out that since indexation was introduced following the Budget last year the rates for tobacco and spirits have been rounded downwards. I should point out to him, because he was railing about what we were doing to the poor beer drinkers of Australia, that under indexed excise beer drinkers at least know that the cost of beer will increase only according to the consumer price index, and in fact in the next quarter will not increase at all, which will be rather a novelty. It will be the first time in a long while in Australia that the cost of beer has not increased. The indexation arrangements in fact prohibit the sort of wild fluctuation we used to get. I recall one budget in which the previous Government, in one wild sweep, put up the price of a bottle of beer by 29c. That does not happen any more, and the harmless increase in the price of a middy or a schooner which occurred because of the last indexation increase would hardly affect the thirst of even the most ardent drinker. I thank the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the other speaker from the Opposition, for as usual presenting a reasoned, logical and sensible contribution when leading for the Opposition and supporting the proposition that the Bills contain. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on the motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 May, on motion by Mr John Brown: That this 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. Consideration resumed from 10 May 1984. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 2, sub-clause (2), lines 11 and 12, leave out the sub- clause. No. 2-Page 3, clause 5, paragraph (d), proposed paragraphs 23 (2) (e) and (f), lines 21 to 31, leave out the proposed paragraphs. Mr PETER MORRIS(Newcastle-Minister for Transport)(9.17) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. My remarks are common to both messages from the Senate in respect of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill. The amendments proposed in the Bills originally sent to the Senate were aimed at providing more flexibility in tendering. They provided for exemptions to be sought from the compulsory calling of tenders in respect of national road construction works and works on urban and rural arterial roads under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, firstly, where there were conditions requiring emergency works; secondly, where the works were of a minor nature so that additional cost would be imposed upon the cost of the works by the calling of tenders; thirdly, where it was not practicable to proceed with tender specifications being prepared; and, fourthly, where the projects were located in remote areas and the receipt of competitive tenders was unlikely. The four amendments to provide those exemptions from the calling of tenders have been agreed by the Senate in respect of each of the two Bills. Clearly they represent good administrative practice and make good common sense. The two additional exemptions rejected by the Senate were contained in proposed new paragraphs (e) and (f) in clause 5. Paragraph (e) provided that exempt works involve adjustments to utility services which would normally be undertaken by a government authority or public corporation. This provision was aimed at enabling utility service operators to perform work on their own installations in relation to road construction. Examples of these would include gas distribution authorities where there was a need to shift gas mains in relation to construction of a road; electricity distribution; Telecom Australia installations; and water distribution and supply services. It would also include work on level crossings and bridges where the work has to be performed by railway employees under operating conditions. It made good sense and it made for greater efficiency if, in those cases I have outlined, the actual roadworks were to be carried out by the authority or corporation involved rather than putting the project out to a private tenderer and then trying to co-ordinate the provision of supplies at the same time as the work proceeded. This exemption was limited to construction of utility services only and did not cover ancillary works, such as bridge approaches. As I have mentioned, it was a sensible, practical measure. In fact, the Opposition spokesman in this chamber at the time said as much during the debate. Regrettably, the Liberal Party, National Party and Australian Democrat senators rejected that sub-clause and it has been deleted by way of their amendment that is now before the chamber for consideration. Let me say, in reference to the debate, that no logical explanation was put forward by any of those senators as grounds for the rejection of that sub-clause . Paragraph (f) states that the performance of the works under contract would cause unavoidable retrenchment of or significant and unavoidable inefficiency in the deployment of a substantial number of State or local government road construction employees. The purpose of providing that exemption from the calling of tenders in circumstances outlined in respect of sub-clause 5 (f) was perfectly clear: It was to provide the opportunity for continuity of work for road gang employees in country areas. The attitude of he Opposition, particularly Opposition senators, towards that amendment is beyond comprehension . In respect of proposed new paragraph (e), members of the Opposition were divided between this House and the Senate. As I said, the Opposition spokesman said in this chamber that proposed new paragraph (e) was reasonable and would be acceptable. In the Senate the same paragraph was rejected by Liberal, National Party and Democrat senators. Mr Lusher —That does not sound like me at all. Mr PETER MORRIS —I suggest the honourable member read Hansard. As to paragraph ( f), again the Opposition's attitude is quite bewildering. The doctrinaire dries in the Opposition prefer to ignore the practical realities of the need for an established work force for road maintenance and construction in country areas. By rejecting proposed new paragraph (f) Opposition senators have effectively retained the threat that has existed to the jobs of local government and State road authority employees in country areas where there are limited alternative employment prospects. Their action so concerned the New South Wales Department of Main Roads workers in the south coast region that they were prepared to suffer a loss of income and to go on strike to express the depth of their reaction to the course followed by the Liberal, National party and the Australian Democrat senators. The people in the country, country towns, country road authorities and councils are well aware of the important role of road authority regional work forces. They are well aware that the road construction and road maintenance employees in country towns provide one of the few stable work forces. They are well aware of the role played by those people in the event of a civil emergency and the use of their plant and the facilities that are available. Therefore, the action and attitude of the Opposition hit at the very social fabric of many small country towns. The Government's proposals were not aimed, as was suggested by some Opposition members, at simply making work for road authority employees in country areas. It is an established fact that main roads authorities must retain day labour forces to undertake urgent works or for situations where private contractors do not tender or submit excessively high bids. It makes good economic sense that these work forces be effectively and efficiently deployed at all times-that is, if the taxpayer is to receive value for money in the road construction sector. I have no doubt that country people will be astonished at the action taken by their so- called representatives in this place and in the Senate. The question arises: Who does the National Party represent? It certainly does not represent the interests of country council employees, it certainly does not represent the interests of country road authorities and it certainly does not represent the interests of country townspeople who are dependent upon the regular and stable employment provided by country road authorities and country councils to maintain the level of services and the quality of life that are provided in those country towns. I made it abundantly clear in the debate in this chamber when the Bills were dealt with here that it was not the Government's intention or my intention that the proposed amendments; undermine the tendering arrangments, they were designed to meet a clear and established need for flexibility in the administration of both Acts. They were amendments that were sound and that made good common sense. They were amendments that had the unanimous support of all State road Ministers through the Australian Transport Advisory Council. I want to emphasise that the National Party Government in Queensland, the Liberal Government of Tasmania and the Country-Liberal Party administration of the Northern Territory were some of the strongest supporters of the amendments. They, like people in the country, now recognise that they have been betrayed by the actions of their Federal colleagues in this place and by the actions of the Liberal, National Party and Democrat senators in the other place. I emphasise also that the Tasmanian Minister for Roads, the Hon. Ian Braid, telexed me the day these Bills were dealt with by the Senate and advised me of the appeal he had made to all Tasmanian senators to support the amendments. If they had supported the amendments they would have been carried in their entirety- including proposed new paragraphs (e) and (f). Unfortunately his appeal was ignored by his Federal colleagues in the Liberal Party when the matter was put to the vote in the Senate. Again, that indicates the shambles in which the Opposition now finds itself, and particularly the Liberal Party. The State Liberal Government in Tasmania is pursuing one course and the Federal Liberal senators in the other place are objecting. The attitude of the Opposition should be a concern for all Australians for a number of reasons: Firstly, they refuse to recognise the reality and persist with their theoretical dogma in ignorance of the real needs of people in country towns and remote areas. The question arises: Just what are they trying to achieve? It seems that they prefer the pursuit of dogma, a theory, to dealing with the real needs and aspirations of people who live in the country towns and who work for councils and for country road authorities. It is obvious that they are not going to stop at anything, not even the requirements of their own colleagues in their State governments, even if they have to ignore their colleagues in their State governments, to achieve what they see is a desirable dogma, a desirable theoretical objective. I repeat that all of the State Ministers for Transport requested these amendments. All of them supported them and this Government, in the spirit of co- operation in which it has sought to work with the States, responded to their requests. This legislation is a joint effort-a joint effort that has been marred by the action of the Federal Liberal and National parties and the Australian Democrats. As I have said, in these circumstances, in moving that we accept the amendments , I want to emphasise that we have no choice. There is no practical alternative but to accept them. The four sub-clauses that have been agreed to by the Senate provide some minor flexibility. Where a State Minister was prepared to put a case to me for exemption to be granted from the calling of tenders the real flexibility and protection for country councils is no longer available and the jobs of people working in country councils and country road authorities are now in jeopardy because of the actions of the National Party, the Democrats and the Liberal Party. In those circumstances, we have no alternative but to accept the amendments as passed by the Senate. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(9.30) —The Opposition is naturally very pleased that the Government has come to accept the good sense of the amendments that were moved and passed in the Senate. On behalf of the Opposition I congratulate the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) for having had the good sense to acknowledge that the action that was taken in the other place was appropriate. Mr Mountford —Nonsense. Mr LUSHER —The honourable member for Banks says: 'Nonsense'. If he just listens to me for a minute or two he will understand exactly what I am talking about. Mr Mountford —I will not learn much. Mr LUSHER —The honourable member will learn a lot; he is someone who can learn a lot. He is one person who I know has an open mind. The amendments come in two parts. The first amendment, which the Senate has passed and which the Government has indicated it will accept, deletes sub-clause (2) of clause 2 in the original Bill which states: The amendments made by Section 5-- Those amendments detail the exemptions from the tendering arrangements- shall be deemed to have taken effect on 12 February 1984. I really do not understand why. The Minister might like to explain to us why he included 12 February 1984 as the operational date in the first place. It is interesting that some claims have been floating around outside this Parliament that the reason the Minister backdated the legislation to 12 February 1984 was that in anticipation of its going through the Parliament he had approved some variations to tendering procedures under the exemption, in the Bill. I do not know whether that is the case, but it seems to carry some credibility by reason of the fact that the Minister wanted to backdate the amendments in clause 5 for a significant number of months. If he approved variations to the normal tendering process that would have been okay if the Bill had gone through at the time that he approved them. They are not now covered because the Senate has rejected paragraphs (e) and (f) and the House is about to accept the Senate's amendments and also reject paragraphs (e) and (f). The Minister ought to come clean and explain to the House whether that was the case. If it was I think he is probably guilty of having acted improperly in this matter and he ought to be accountable to the Parliament for having done so. The second of the amendments removes paragraphs (e) and (f) from clause 5. As the Minister has said, those are two of what would have been six provisions that he could use to justify waiving the tendering procedures. I made it very clear in my speech during the second reading debate and the Committee debate in the House the last time this Bill was in the chamber, before it went to the Senate where it was amended, that we would not have a bar of it and that we would oppose all those changes to the tendering arrangements. The Opposition has a very strong commitment to the tendering procedures. It has been made clear in this House on a number of occasions that the achievements of a former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who is now the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, in getting those tendering provisions into this Act were excellent achievements. The question of getting value for road dollars had to be taken into account. It was acknowledged that there were inefficiencies within some of the State Government road making authorities and some competition had to be provided to ensure that the State road making authorities were kept on their toes. There was absolutely no discrimination in this arrangement. If the State road making authorities were efficient there was no reason why they could not get the work. They were quite entitled to tender and in many cases, as I understand it, they have tendered for work and have won those tenders. I indicated that there was no big problem in principle, as far as we were concerned, with paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) because they were minor matters . They allow the Minister to waive the tender procedures in cases of emergency, when very minor work is involved, or when the amount of work involved means it is not practical to prepare tender specifications. The fourth paragraph involves those sorts of jobs for which tenders are unlikely to be received. We did not object too much to those provisions. If the Minister was going to insist on those sorts of changes they were probably the sorts of changes that arose out of experience and ought to have been accepted. We thought that paragraph (e) relating to work of a kind that is usually carried out by the department of main roads-type body left the whole system wide open. The last paragraph, paragraph (f), states: . . . in order to avoid the occurrence of a loss of employment by, or the inefficient deployment of, a substantial number of those employees . . . This relates to a DMR-type organisation. One of the reasons we want tendering and one of the reasons, obviously, why the Senate has moved the amendments that it has moved, is to ensure that those State road making authorities have some competitive element attaching to them so that they cannot go out and do road jobs as of right regardless of the cost. The Minister has said that he is looking to the interests of the State road authority employees and the interests of country towns and remote areas. I respect that. I hope that, in any of the statements I have made, I have not detracted from the interests of the State road authority employees or the interests of country towns or remote areas. In a situation like this obviously a balance of interests has to be considered. Thousands of millions of dollars are being outlayed on roads in this country and we have to ensure that this is being done in a proper manner. We cannot afford to featherbed any particular sector. We cannot afford to put the interests of one sector above any other. In that way we provide that competitive environment. As I have said, if the road authorities are good enough they will get the work. The Minister also said that the amendments have the support of all the State roads Ministers. He quoted at length the experience of Tasmania. It does not surprise me that the State road ministers are supporting the amendments because they are responsible for those day labour forces. It is their responsibility to ensure that those people are getting work. It is obviously easier for them if they do not have to compete for it. Therefore, I do not necessarily put too much weight on that example. I can understand that a State road minister would prefer to have things a little easier than a little harder. It is in his interests to do that. The Minister has had to lean heavily on the assertion that our amendments are ideologically based, based on dogma and things of that nature. I reject that because it is quite clear from the stance that the Opposition has taken right through this debate that we are concerned about efficiency and value for money. The Minister finished up with a plaintiff cry that he has absolutely no choice but to accept the Senate's amendments and that there is no practical alternative to doing that. Poor Minister! Other Ministers in this place have taken the view that they will not be pushed around by the other place and they have sent legislation back. I take the example of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) with his amendment to the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill which has been in and out of the two Houses on I think four or five occasions now. The Treasurer is not prepared to lie down in the face of Senate pressure. Yet this Minister, on the first occasion that the Senate has attempted to move an amendment to his legislation, has come into this chamber and given 150 good reasons why what the Senate has done is outrageous and should not be accepted. He then turned round weakly and limply at the end of it and said: 'We have no choice and there is no practical alternative but to accept the Senate's amendments'. I think the Minister ought to be seen for what he is. But I would like to hear a few words from him as to why he wanted in the first place the amendments in clause 5 backdated to 12 February and whether any action was taken in relation to tendering under clause 5 before the legislation was passed by the Parliament. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.40) —I want to make a few comments in connection with this matter because the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has mentioned the part local government has played in the amendments that are before us. I said in the second reading debate on this legislation that the discretion allowed to the Minister in regard to clause 5 was wide enough to drive a bus through. Apparently that has been the case except the Senate has decided, in its wisdom, at least to close the gate a little. Discretions are still in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) but, of course, it was paragraphs (e) and (f) that the Opposition objected to most strenuously. It would be at the whim of only a State Minister of a department-either of the Australian Labor Party or otherwise-to make application, and obviously that discretion would be applied and given in the circumstances. Even now the remaining clauses lack some definition. For instance, in paragraph (b), what is a minor nature for a tender or contract, and when is it not practicable to become eligible to prepare adequate tender specifications? The whole thing is still loose but at least the major items in paragraphs (e) and (f) are removed. I agree with the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) that there has been a lot of rhetoric as to why the amendments should not be accepted, and yet we are faced with this situation. The only difference that I can see between this and the tax Bills that were mentioned is that obviously the tax Bills were meant to be a trigger for a double dissolution later this year, and one Bill is sufficient. I believe that will be the case. However, in addition to that the Minister has been saying a lot about the fact that this legislation has been blocked by the Senate. He has been raving on out in the electorate trying to convince people that it has been the Opposition and the Australian Democrats who have been holding it up. I do not believe that local governments are all that hostile towards the original intentions not introduced under the Australian bicentennial road development program but under the national highway construction program some four years ago. If there is a situation about which local governments are concerned I believe they will learn to live with it. They will see the practicality of the extra road length built at a cheaper cost and better constructed. I believe that is the way a competitive tender ought to be. Departments of main roads or local government should not be the ones who initiate, program, build, supervise, pay and finance the whole project. That is a real recipe for disaster for road building. I repeat: Local government has been known to live with those applications in the national road program. It is fair enough that some minor amendments were required, and these are now incorporated with the rest of the amendments. However, if one looks at the statistics over the last 10 years, and more particularly over the last few years, one sees that the work force of local government has increased; it has not decreased. I believe that the Minister is whistling in the dark. He said to the electorate in his rage that the Senate was at fault, but now he has been seen to agree with it. What really concerns me is that the other aspect of the amendment required in this legislation is not being picked up. I refer to the indexed ABRD funds which are being spun off to Consolidated Revenue. Mr Lusher —How much? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Some $500m is being lost. I think it is a tragedy that the Minister did not see the same sense in these amendments. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) complains about the lack of funds for roads and national highways and yet he is denying the road systems of Australia $500m. He has been given the opportunity to vote for the amendments but he is on record as having voted against them. He has denied not only the people of Australia and road users $500m but also his own electorate. Yet he complains bitterly about the lack of funds. Mr Lusher —Which electorate is he from? Mr BRAITHWAITE —He is a oncer from Leichhardt. Mr Lusher —Where is Leichhardt? Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is way up north where the roads require-- Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —I am sure that the honourable member for Dawson needs no assistance from the honourable member for Hume. Mr Lusher —Why does he hate North Queensland? Mr BRAITHWAITE —One could think of why he hates Queensland. However, the honourable member is only a oncer. It offends me to think that the Minister is given the opportunity of making the amendments. I can assure him that there is a rage in the electorate, not only from local government but also from all road users, that roads construction will be denied $500m. It does not matter what the Minister says or does or who he writes to, it is a fact that he has denied that extra amount of money to road construction, and he is the Minister for Transport . A few weeks ago I think the honourable member for North sydney (Mr Spender) said in this chamber that having this Minister in charge of roads is like having a vegetarian in charge of an abattoir. It is precisely the same situation. I ask the Minister to take this final opportunity of giving justice in this regard. He has talked about tendering and what is required of the main roads forces and local government. However, if he is listening to his electorate, if he is listening to the people outside, if he is listening to local government he will know that they are telling him that there is some requirement to make those indexed funds go to road construction or the transport needs of Australia instead of being lost in Consolidated Revenue. If the Minister thinks that transport users, the people who pay this indexed road levy, are in a rage at the moment, given six or 12 months that rage will be a bushfire. I certainly hope that the Minister will take this final opportunity of making this further amendment. I agree with the honourable member for Hume that the amendments are absolutely necessary, that they are logical and make common-sense. The Minister has not been pressured into this. As the honourable member for Hume has said, once around the ring is not really going to the wall. In other words he has been rolled by the Senate. Common-sense has prevailed, which is unusual for the Minister. I just ask him to place a little more justice within the Roads Grants Amendment Bill by agreeing to this amendment. I also ask the Minister whether he has already acted on his discretion to allow some of these provisions to be passed before the Bill goes through and whether that is the reason for its retrospectivity. One is not surprised by retrospectivity from the Government. It seems to rule by retrospectivity and discretion. This discretion is still evident in the Roads Grants Act, and I do not believe that is a good thing in itself. Can the Minister answer my question about whether any action was taken outside the law pending the passing of this legislation, and will he amend it further to provide for the indexed funds to go to roads? Mr COWAN(Lyne)(9.50) —My comments on the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill will be particularly brief. I emphasise that there is nothing in the amendments before the Committee tonight that will deprive people employed by the councils or any of the road authorities of their rights. It must be emphasised-this is very important indeed-that the road authorities and the councils have every opportunity to tender for these road works. This has been stated tonight by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher ) and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). That is important. What the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) stated in his remarks early tonight is not correct. I know that councils in my electorate and elsewhere have received the opportunity to tender in the past. If the Minister has a look at the New South Wales situation he will possibly find that the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales over the last two or three years has been able to win the majority of the contracts for the major works on the highways and the main and trunk roads of the State. This is very important indeed. I think the factor that concerns the Committee and the people of Australia is that the ratepayer or the taxpayer should receive value for the money that he pays. The only way that he or she will receive that value is for these matters to go out for tender. It is deplorable to think that any government, Commonwealth or State, will tie up our contracting system. People from outside will not have the opportunity to tender for bridge or major road works within Australia. That is deplorable to me. It is hard to understand. If we go to any other country around the world we will find that those governments allow people to submit a tender for any works to be carried out on roads. Here we are, in this young country of Australia, passing legislation in the Parliament that will not allow private enterprise that opportunity. I certainly praise the other place for at least leaving a little light to enter through the door which will allow some such kind of opportunity. When I think of the bicentenary road legislation that was before this chamber earlier, on which I spoke, I remember that it was introduced by the Fraser-Anthony Administration. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who is in the chamber tonight, introduced the legislation. Mr Gayler —Great administration! Mr COWAN —If the Minister were doing the proper thing by the honourable member for Leichhardt and others on that side of the chamber he would have agreed earlier to the indexation of petrol prices resulting in an extra $400m for roads . Mr Reeves —You put it up by 6c a litre in one year. Mr COWAN —I have been interrupted by the honourable member for the Northern Territory so I tell him that if anybody needs money for roads it is the people of the Northern Territory. It is amazing to me that the two honourable members who have been interjecting during my speech tonight represent most of the north of Australia. They represent people who want roads. Those people ought to have $ 400m extra spent on their roads. The honourable member for the Northern Territory and the honourable member for Leichhardt are the honourable members who voted in this chamber against the extra money for roads. It is deplorable. Their electors will know. The legislation came before the Parliament at the time of the election in New South Wales, when the Premier of New South Wales took $ 40m from this Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund to spend on water transport in Sydney to help him win the election. This is money that came out of the Fund. Mr McGauran —It was more than $40m. Mr COWAN —It might have been. I know that $40m was promised for and spent on water transport. The Premier lost the electorates on the North Shore to which he promised it. The point is that we who have represented country electorates over the years in this chamber have been trying to get more money back for roads, particularly country roads but urban roads as well. Here we have the opportunity to do that. The Minister-I give him credit for this-has always supported bicentennial road funding. He has taken the opportunity to say that 40 per cent more was spent on roads in 1983-84 than was spent in 1982-83. Of course, there was. That extra spending is possible only because of the bicentennial road funding program. We will support the Minister. However, it is a job to support the Minister when he is saying and doing the things that he has so far as the amendments to the Bill are concerned. I wanted to say those few words in relation to the aspect of tendering. The opportunity was still there to save the Australian taxpayers' dollar, to create efficiency, to put money into roads, to do a good job for the roads, for the motorists and for the transport system of Australia. Surely to goodness that opportunity was there but not entirely there until the amendments to the Bill were introduced by the Senate. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(9.56) —The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) looks sad. I ask him not to be sad because I congratulate him. I think it is amazing. Not many Ministers have the sense this Minister has. I can see what has happened. The Minister has been to the Australian Transport Advisory Council and spoken to all those State Ministers. I have been through it. They did not like the thought of having any power taken away from them at all. Year after year my predecessor, Mr Nixon, God bless him, went through the same sort of difficulty that I went through. I refer to the pressure from State Ministers. Over the years they have, with their road making authorities, amassed an enormous quantity of road making equipment; much of it left by the road sides, by the highways, under the trees and parked on properties. Mr Lusher —Parked on your property. Mr HUNT —That is right. One great big scraper was parked outside my ramp for three weeks. Mr Peter Morris —Did you pay for it? Mr HUNT —The ratepayers and the taxpayers are paying for it. That is what worries me. I saw this happen when I was a shire councillor. For years I tried to get my council-I ultimately persuaded it-to use the tender and contract system. To have these depots in the towns full of graders, lorries, rollers and scrapers or to see them parked by the road side, seemed to me to be an extraordinary waste of money. For some reason shire engineers and engineers on the road constructing authorities seem to want to have all these playthings, at the taxpayers' expense. They get a great thrill out of it. Of course, they fire up their Ministers at meetings of ATAC and get them to put the pressure on the Commonwealth Minister. They did not succeed in wheeling me and they have not succeeded in wheeling this very shrewd Minister. He has probably given those State Ministers an undertaking to see what he can do. The Minister has introduced his legislation and the Parliament, in its wisdom, has said no. The Minister will have to go back to ATAC and do the sensible, sound and wise thing on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia. For that I congratulate him. The Minister has won a fight tonight in a very shrewd way. He has done well. I wish it were another fight. The other fight concerns the matter about which there has been so much lament tonight. The Minister has sold the roads down the drain by $500m through letting the Treasury- Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr HUNT —I can hear the former Treasurer laughing. The Treasury will rip off the road users $500m between now and 1988. I have no doubt that the Minister will get back into the ring in his pre-Budget discussions and take on the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). If he does that he will have a very happy time with local government and with the road people around Australia. I hope the Minister can pull off another stunt as successfully as he pulled off this one. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.00) —It is significant that the only participants in the debate tonight from the Opposition side were the honourable member of Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), all of whom are members of the National Party of Australia and who masquerade as representatives of people in the country, and masquerade they do. In the legislation before the Committee tonight we are seeking to provide a very small element of flexibility in the administration of two road Acts which, under rigorous scrutiny, would provide a level of protection for country road workers. I speak of the honourable member for Dawson in particular. He is totally immune to the problems of people in the country. Let me say to the honourable member for Dawson that the Barcaldine Shire Council is one of the councils in Queensland that is particularly concerned about the passage of this legislation and about its lack of flexibility. I suggest to the honourable member that he take up his views with that Council. It is significant that it has been the National Party which has led the fight against this legislation and against attempts to help people in the country. Let country people register their own reaction to that at the ballot box. Let me say in respect of the first amendment moved by the Opposition spokesman on transport that it was accepted because-he probably did not notice at the time -on 12 February I announced the intention of the Government to introduce this legislation. The conditions regarding that legislation were also announced at that time. But unfortunately, it did not get into the heads of members of the Opposition until the Bills were debated here by them that the provision was contained in the legislation. I am sorry that Opposition members did not like that kind of arrangement. It was released to Australia and no one registered any objection to it. Unhappily for the Opposition, I have not granted any approvals. I am sorry that it has had that disappointment. It should be noted that the amendment moved by the Opposition when the two Bills were debated in this chamber, particularly the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984-which is the issue about which the honourable member for Gwydir also spoke-which calls for the payments to the ABRD Trust Fund to be increased by further payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, was unconstitutional. It should not have been moved; it should have been ruled out of order at that time. Mr Lusher —You are a bit slow. Mr PETER MORRIS —I was a bit slow, but the Opposition was totally ignorant. I want to put that on the record. The same amendment was moved in the Senate. I noticed it at that time and we drew attention to it. It was rejected in the Senate. So much for the arguments about indexation which the Opposition chooses to call the increase in payment to the Trust Fund. On that issue, let me simply say that here we have the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir, ranting and raving-- Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Chairman, I take a point of order. The Minister says that the honourable member for Gwydir was ranting and raving yet I heard the Minister deliberately praise the honourable member. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —As I said, the honourable member was ranting and raving about the possible non-use of some $500m of excise revenue in the years to 1988. He said what a terrible thing that was. The former Minister and the former Treasurer, who has now left the chamber, are well aware that the utilisation of excise revenues is not a matter for the Minister for Transport. He has an input in regard to how he would like to see it spent. Mr Lusher —You were not even consulted. You didn't even know it had happened. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member should be patient. It is not a matter for determination during the year. It is a matter for normal budgetary consideration . As I said some time ago, it will be considered during the forthcoming Budget deliberations. Every former Minister who now sits in this chamber knows that to be true, but if they want to delude themselves let them proceed. They are talking about what might be in the future. Let me talk about what they did. It is on record. Let us talk about that, because that is a fact and not speculation which they are trying to raise. The fact is that during the Opposition's term of government, the Liberal Party and the National Party, which masquerade as representatives of people in the country, quadrupled Federal fuel-rated revenue. Mr Lusher —You have not improved it. Mr PETER MORRIS —In fact, you trebled the price of petrol-- Mr Lusher —You promised to reduce it. That is another promise you have broken. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the Committee to come to order. Mr PETER MORRIS —Mr Deputy Chairman, we listened to the Opposition speakers in silence. Please may we have the same courtesy. Those who sit on the other side quadrupled Federal fuel-rated revenue during their term of seven years. They did not double it, they quadrupled it. They trebled the price of petrol and what did they do about Federal road expenditure? They slashed it by $570m. They repeatedly voted in this chamber in support of budgetary measures that reduced Federal road expenditures by some $517m. Yet they have the effrontery to run around the country saying: 'This might happen in 1986, 1987 or 1988'. Let me say to the members of the National Party and the Opposition that the deplorable state of so many roads in this nation and in so many of their electorates is because they robbed road users of half a billion dollars during their term of government. So let them not speculate about the future. Let them try to do something about what they did in the past. The last matter I mention is why the amendments are being accepted. I thought the reason would have been evident without explanation to honourable members, even those of the National Party. That is because there has been no expression of a change in view of the National Party, the Liberal Party or the Australian Democrats in respect of this legislation, which means that if the amendments are rejected by the House of Representatives and sent back to the Senate for further consideration and are again rejected by the Senate, honourable members opposite will be back here in several weeks time to deal with them. I do not expect that they will want to do that. I thought I judged them correctly in forming that conclusion-unless they want to volunteer tonight to come back in three weeks time to deal specifically with that matter only. If the amendments made by the Senate are not accepted this evening, even the minor flexibility that has been provided by the Senate's agreeing to the first four conditions for exemption for the calling of tenders could not be utilised until the matter could be dealt with again during the Budget session at the earliest. So for that reason the Government has no practical alternative other than to accept the amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted Consideration resumed from 10 May 1984. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1 Page 1, clause 2, sub-clause (2), lines 10 and 11, leave out the sub- clause. No. 2. Page 2, clause 3, paragraph (b), proposed definition of ''exempt works'' , paragraphs (e) and (f), lines 11 to 22, leave out the paragraphs. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.09) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. As indicated in my earlier remarks, the remarks I made in respect of the first message are pertinent to this and I will not delay the House in repeating them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-I have circulated the amendments that I will move to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984. I felt that, having regard to the number of honourable members who want to participate in this debate, it would be beneficial to have the amendments in the hands of honourable members so that they can endorse or reject the principles involved in them during the second reading debate. These amendments are, in part, a response to the continuing consultation in which I, and officers of my Department, have been engaged over recent weeks. We have been in personal contact with Ministers of State governments and State officials. We have exchanged correspondence and telephone calls with them. We have spoken to interest groups, in particular representations of the mining and pastoral industries. Many changes to the legislation have been proposed. Some people would have the Bill withdrawn and new legislation prepared. Others have suggested changes which are unnecessary, either because the legislation already covers the matters of concern to them, or it is more appropriate that those matters be dealt with in the administration of the legislation rather than in the Bill itself. Honourable members will recall that in my second reading speech on this Bill I stated in some detail what the Bill was intended to do and what it was not intended to do. The scope of the legislation, the way in which this Government intends it will be administered, and the purpose of it have been clearly spelt out. In recent days attention has been focused on criticisms of the Bill, particularly those criticisms made by the Australian Mining Industry Council. It is now a well known fact that on Monday this week senior representatives of the Council met with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) and me. The meeting lasted almost two hours, and a number of matters of concern to the Council were discussed. Various means of meeting those concerns were explored on a confidential basis. Details of the discussion were not and will not be disclosed. The Council rejected a scheme put forward by the Prime Minister, Senator Walsh and me. There has been speculation in the Press and elsewhere about the details of that scheme. As I have said, those details were and will remain confidential. However, I am bound to say, with the approval of AMIC, that it was no part of our discussion, or any scheme involving those discussions, that involved the proposition that the Bill before the House would be amended. Some positive suggestions have been made which will make the Bill more clear and the administration of it more flexible. Those suggestions are incorporated in the amendments which I propose. Prosecutions Some have criticised what they say is provision in the Bill for the prosecution and conviction of people who innocently, without knowledge of a declaration, breach some provisions of the declaration. It is neither the intention nor the effect of the Bill that such prosecutions take place. However, in consultation with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), I have agreed to reword parts of clauses 22 and 24 to set out in a more acceptable form the way in which the Act will operate. The amended scheme makes more clear the intention of the Bill. In summary, it provides that a person contravening a provision of a declaration will be guilty of an offence. The defendant may adduce his own evidence that he neither knew, nor had reasonable grounds for knowing, of the existence of the declaration. Such evidence may also be drawn out in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Where there is that evidence, the prosecution will bear the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that, at the relevant time, the defendant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the existence of the declaration. Unless the prosecution can discharge that onus, the person cannot be committed for trial or convicted for an offence. Let me assure all honourable members that innocent picnickers, bushwalkers and campers will not be prosecuted. Where appropriate, fences and signs will be erected to mark areas which are the subject of a declaration. This will be in addition to gazette and newspaper notices, and notices to persons likely to be substantially affected by the declaration. There will be nothing secret about a declaration. However, where a person genuinely does not know, and could not reasonably have known, of such a declaration that person will not be in any danger of being convicted. The Effect of a Declaration on Proprietary Interests Miners and some State officials have drawn attention to what they see as a possible limitation on the matters which the Minister is obliged to consider when deciding whether to make a long term declaration in respect of a significant Aboriginal area. The limitation, they suggest, is found primarily in the provision setting out the matters with which an independent person must deal in making a report to the Minister. Among the eight categories of matters to be dealt with in a report are the effects the making of a declaration may have on the proprietary interests of persons other than the Aboriginal applicant, or those Aboriginals on whose behalf the application was made. It has been suggested that the expression 'proprietary interests' can be read narrowly, to exclude from the report and from the Minister's attention the legitimate and substantial interests of others who might be affected by a declaration. For example, a person having an exploration licence over the land may not have a legal interest in the land, and so may not have his interests considered. A number of responses may be made to this point. Firstly, the provision refers to the 'proprietary interests of persons' not to the 'proprietary interests of persons in land the subject of an application'. Thus the proprietary interests of people, other than those having a property right in respect of that land, could be considered. Secondly, a Minister ignoring the relevant interests of such other people would take the risk that the failure to have regard to them could be the basis of an application for a court order to review his decision. Thirdly, I would expect that those administering the Act would interpret the expression 'proprietary interests' to cover a wide range of interests. However, to avoid any ambiguity on the point, and to ensure that all those who may be subject to some financial consequences arising from a declaration will have their interests considered, I have agreed that the Bill be amended to include reference to pecuniary interests. The relevant provisions will now refer to the 'proprietary or pecuniary interests of persons'. It will be clear that, for example, a person who has no legal or equitable interest in the land, but who has a business interest which will be affected by the closure of the area, could make a representation to the person making the report to the Minister. That representation would be attached to the report and considered by the Minister. Delegation Recent discussions with some State government officials have shown the advantage of including in the heritage Bill a power for the Minister to delegate certain functions. Such a power would serve to: (A) avoid duplication of functions already performed by a State or Territory under its own legislation; (B) avoid the risk that a State or Territory government would discontinue performing a function, preferring to transfer the performance of it to the Commonwealth on the basis that the Act effectively covers the point; and (C) allow some administrative matters to be handled by Commonwealth officials rather than the Minister. The Bill already provides in clause 7 for the concurrent operation of State and Territory laws. The power to appoint authorised officers who are empowered to make emergency declarations-clauses 17 to 19-could be used to appoint certain State officials. To complete that scheme it would be useful to be able to delegate responsibility for some administrative matters-for example, the fencing and sign posting of declared areas-where those administrative functions are already being performed effectively at a State body willing to accept extra responsibility. A particular example of potential duplication arises from the requirement in clause 20 to report the discovery of human remains. Where a State law has a similar requirement and even if that law is being administered effectively, the Act will still require reporting to the Commonwealth Minister. As well, the Minister will be required to make certain inquiries which may overlap with similar inquiries of a State administration. Rather than duplicate the work, and consequent cost, it would be useful to be able to delegate that investigation function. Already some States have indicated a willingness to co-operate in the implementation of this legislation. Where appropriate arrangements can be made, this delegation power will enable formal endorsement of those arrangements. There are other matters, such as the notification of people who might be affected by a declaration, which could usefully be delegated to Commonwealth officials. Mr Speaker, there is no suggestion that the decisions which must be taken by a Minister, and for which he will be held responsible, will be delegated. The amendment specifically excludes from delegation the Minister's power to make declarations, the Minister's obligation to consult with his State or Territory counterpart and the Minister's power to seek injunctions from the Federal Court of Australia. These amendments reflect the desire of the Government to meet any suggestion of ambiguity in the Government's intention in respect of this legislation. I again remind the House that this legislation is interim legislation. There has been more consultation in the preparation of this Bill than previous coalition governments engaged in when amendments to other Aboriginal land rights legislation were made. There has been more consultation than either the Queensland or Tasmanian Governments have engaged in when preparing Aboriginal legislation with implications for the Commonwealth. In anticipation of preparing more comprehensive land rights legislation, invitations to consult have already been issued to the mining industry and the farmers-the groups which have been most vocal in their criticism of the Bill before the House. I therefore commend these amendment for the consideration and support of the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.22) —The turbulent history of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island (Interim Protection) Bill 1984, both in Cabinet and in the subsequent public discussions prior to this debate, has added to the growing public concern with this Government's handling of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. I have said on many occasions that this is an extremely sensitive area that requires a rational and balanced approach. The good will built up in the past by positive government initiatives aimed at meeting the real needs of the Aboriginal people is being eroded by this Government. Public understanding of and support for special programs to assist the Aboriginal people is gradually being replaced by antagonism, ill feeling and distrust towards this Government, and it is the Aboriginal people who will inevitably suffer the consequences. Soon after his appointment the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) made some extravagant and ill-conceived promises which have given life to extremists on both sides in what is a sensitive and volatile area. Instead of criticising and peremptorily dismissing those who have raised doubts and concerns, he ought to be looking at the causes. If he were to adopt a more conciliatory and balanced approach to these matters the extremists would have no case to peddle and the cohesion of the peoples of this country would not be placed in jeopardy. The Minister calls for bipartisanship and yet has done everything in his power to destroy it. Instead of seeking consultation and co- operation with the Opposition and other organisations which have a role to play in relation to his responsibilities he has sought through confrontation to implement an inflexible and unrealistic predetermined set of principles without consultation or reconciliation. The Bill and its predecessor have travelled a very tortuous path. The original legislation introduced into Cabinet by this Minister was rejected as being totally inappropriate. The Minister was sent away to have another go. Unfortunately, he did not do much better. This legislation was sneaked into Cabinet as an unlisted item. Other departments had no prior opportunity to consider the contents of the Bill. Since then the Minister has been in an inordinate hurry to introduce the legislation and have it passed by this House before any worthwhile consultation can be held. In his usual confrontationist approach to these matters, the Minister failed to seek the support of the States , industry, the Opposition and others who have a vital interest in such legislation. We are left guessing as to the reasons for the sudden urgency for the Government to pass this legislation. Certainly, I appreciate that the Minister would want to get at least one run on the board before the next election. He rushed around the country making all sorts of promises soon after he was appointed and this is the first legislative move he has made in an attempt to fulfil just one of them. I am not suggesting that a Minister's performance ought to be based on the amount of legislation introduced. In fact, in some areas I believe performance ought to be judged on the amount of legislation repealed in this grossly over-regulated society. However, the undertakings made by the Minister can be met only by legislation. Therefore, if he is to have any credibility he needs some legislation. Honourable members will be acutely aware of the fact that on the last occasion the Minister had a rush of blood to the head he introduced his Aboriginal affairs motion into this House. Mr Hand —What is wrong with that? Mr PORTER —The honourable member might well ask what is wrong with it. Perhaps he will tell us why the motion has not been brought on for debate. It is now nearly six months since it was moved, and it has run into so much trouble that it has not come on for debate and is not likely to be debated until the Budget session. If we accept that the Minister needs to get this legislation through so that he has at least one run on the board, we are still left wondering why the Bill has to be dealt with this session. The only answer to that can be that the Government is acutely embarrassed by the Minister's handling of this portfolio and does not want to delay this debate until the Budget session, in the lead up to the early election. So this is the last desperate effort to recover some credibility with an increasingly disconcerted Aboriginal community. Unfortunately, the Bill will have the opposite effect. The House is well aware of the concern which is being expressed by State governments of all political persuasions in relation to both the lack of consultation and the ramifications of this legislation. The Minister's idea of consultation was to send the legislation to the States and a number of interested groups at the eleventh hour. In the couple of days provided for responses to be given, the Minister was overwhelmed with criticisms regarding the operation and implications of the legislation. His reaction to these criticisms has been to ignore them and press on regardless. The result has been a public and almost unanimous call for the withdrawal of the Bill. Opposition to the legislation has come from the Australian Mining Industry Council, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, the Australian Archaeological Association, Aboriginal communities and many others. The State Governments of Western Australia, Tasmania, Queensland and New South Wales and the Government in the Northern Territory have all expressed grave concerns about the legislation. I am not aware of the response of the governments of South Australia and Victoria. However, I would not be surprised if they shared the concerns of the other States. Let me quote just one State's view. I pick a Labor State to show the depth of concern. Mr Wilson, the Minister for Housing, Youth and Community Services with special responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs in Western Australia said on 8 May in the Western Australian Parliament: The State Government was not convinced, and it remains unconvinced of the need for the legislation. It continues to have doubts and concerns about the lack of consultation between the State Government and the Commonwealth with respect to this matter. The Western Australian State Minister is not alone. I understand that since he made that statement the Western Australian Labor Caucus has voted for the withdrawal of the legislation. No wonder the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made sure the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) was sent to London while this debate was on. The handling of this legislation has been atrocious and it clearly indicates the inability of this Minister effectively to administer his portfolio. The Minister should have made a genuine attempt to ascertain the views of those concerned and to develop a Bill which, whilst meeting the needs of the Aboriginal people, reflected a proper balance and protected the rights of others who will be affected by the legislation. The Minister could still achieve this by withdrawing the Bill and undertaking a fundamental redraft of the legislation. However, I doubt that he will adopt this course, because, as I have said, the Government is operating on a political timetable and is unwilling to let this debate flow over to the next session. No doubt the Minister would also like to avoid going to the July Australian Labor Party Conference empty handed. Australia's future unity is being jeopardised for the sake of political expediency. The coalition parties in government and in opposition have made clear their concern for the need to protect significant sacred sites, and the need to preserve the integrity of Aboriginal culture and history. Indeed, the Northern Territory's land rights legislation includes specific reference to such sites. The Bill before the House does not refer to sacred sites and the areas around them which may need to be protected. The Bill and the second reading speech by the Minister make it clear that he intends this legislation to have much wider application. There are so many fundamental flaws in the legislation that the Opposition has no alternative but to oppose the Bill. Mr Gayler —What are they? Mr PORTER —Just wait and listen. The Bill is to apply not only in the Territories under Commonwealth control but also in the States. The legislation is based on the Minister's view that the Commonwealth is the seat of all wisdom in these matters. The States have legislation covering these issues and some States are in the process of reviewing their legislation. But this is a centralist government, and the Minister believes that where he is of the view that the State legislation is insufficient to provide the protection which he thinks the situation requires or, indeed, if he thinks the States have not acted in accordance with his wishes, even though they may be adopting a course of action to protect the area in question under their own legislation then he will override the State and intervene by making a declaration under the legislation before us. The Minister has made no secret that it is the Government's intention to use the race relations power under the Constitution to impose on the States federal views in relation to Aboriginal affairs. It will be remembered that the Commonwealth Constitution, up until the 1967 referendum, denied the Commonwealth the power to legislate in relation to Aborigines. The 1967 referendum changed that by deleting that restriction from the Constitution. The Yes case supporting the change in the Constitution clearly stated that the Commonwealth power would be used in co-operation with the States. This legislation is not in accordance with the Yes case, which was supported at the referendum. In the face of almost unanimous opposition from the States on this issue, any reasonable and rational Minister would reconsider this legislation, but not this Minister. Let me give an example of the ramifications of this Commonwealth legislation and its effect when it is involved in the States. In August of last year an article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald indicating that the Minister was going to introduce legislation of this type because of the confrontation which had arisen at Cane Grass Swamp in the north of South Australia. Honourable members will recall that in that instance some members of the Aboriginal community did not want a road servicing the Roxby Downs mine to go over the Cane Grass Swamp area because it was claimed to be sacred. The Minister is quoted as saying at that time that the Roxby Downs confrontation had shown up the present inadequacies of laws on Aboriginal sites and given the problem more immediacy. Later in the article it was reported that Mr Holding had expressed his support of the Aboriginal claim but he said he was hampered from active Federal intervention because there was no relevant Commonwealth law protecting Aboriginal sites. Since that time he has made clear that the Roxby Downs dispute at Cane Grass Swamp was a case in point where by believed he needed Federal powers to intervene. In relation to the dispute at Cane Grass Swamp, it will be recalled that as a result of negotiations undertaken under State legislation with the active participation of the State Government, the Roxby Downs management and the Aboriginal community, the issue was resolved. The original claim that the access road would have to go round Cane Grass Swamp was not maintained by the Aboriginals and agreement was reached that certain specific areas would be avoided with smaller deviations. Without going into all the details of those negotiations, it is clear that the parties did sit down and discuss the matter, and agreement was reached. However, the Minister says that that dispute is an example of why he wants this legislation passed. But I repeat, the dispute was resolved under the existing State law. Given the repeated claims by the Minister that he needs this legislation because he would have liked to intervene, therefore let us look at what would have been the result if he had intervened. Under clause 9 of this Bill an application could have been made to the Minister by the Aboriginals concerned claiming that it was a significant Aboriginal area which was under serious and immediate threat of injury. There is no doubt that given the Ministers public statements on the issue, he would have then made a declaration prohibiting entry into the area which initially could be for up to 60 days. Mr Holding —Who says that? Mr PORTER —The legislation, Minister; read your own legislation. Under this legislation, the Minister then could have sought a report from a person nominated by him which, under the legislation, could have been one of the people seeking the declaration. Once he received the report-it may have been made by someone independent or it could have been made by one of the applicants making the report-he could have then prohibited entry into the area for a period up to two years, the period of this legislation. Mr Hand —What provision is that? Mr PORTER —Clause 9. Has not the honourable member read the Bill either? That is the problem. Mr Hand —Here it is in my hand. Mr PORTER —The Bill has not been to half of the honourable member's committees. He has not read the Bill and he does not understand it. Those are the powers which are given to the Minister under this legislation. Even Blind Freddy could see that the making of an emergency declaration or a more permanent declaration will not be conducive to the establishment of consultations to resolve the differences between the Aboriginal community, seeking to protect sacred sites which are significant to them, and the interests of the company, in that case seeking access to water. Rather than assisting in bringing together and initiating a process of consultation whereby the interests of both parties can best be served, this legislation is more likely to lead to a stand off and a delay in the resolution of the problems. There is no doubt that the Roxby Downs example I use is a very relevant one, because the Minister in his second reading speech refers to a number of situations which have arisen during the life of this Parliament, and he said that these highlight 'the need for legislation to enable direct immediate action by the Commonwealth.' There is no doubt in my view that had this legislation been enforced at the time of the Roxby Downs dispute the Minister would have used his powers under this legislation and the dispute would still not be resolved. The basis of a declaration being made under this legislation is that the area is a significant Aboriginal area, in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. So we are not talking about the protection of significant sacred sites. This legislation relates to the protection of significant Aboriginal areas. The legislation does not define whether the significance of the Aboriginal area relates to the fact that it is sacred or that it has a mythological or historic or recreational significance. It is an extraordinarily wide definition, and the power and discretion of the Minister under this Bill are almost unlimited. Mr Gayler —What clause is that? Mr PORTER —Try the definition clause, clause 3, you dodo. The unlimited power of the Minister is made dramatically clear when one considers that the Bill provides no guidelines as to how the Minister is to assess, in regard to an application made by an Aboriginal or an Aboriginal group or someone applying on their behalf, whether an area is a significant Aboriginal area and whether it is under threat. The Bill does not provide for the Minister to seek independent or expert advice, and there are no verification procedures set out in the Bill. The realities of the world are that in every community there are honest and dishonest people, and this proposed Act seems to be based on the fact the Minister believes only legitimate claims will be made. Given that all land in Australia-that is, Crown land, private land, urban land and rural land-is subject to claim under this legislation- Mr Gayler —What about leases? Mr PORTER —They are included as well. I believe the Australian public has a right to know how the Minister will satisfy himself that a claim is in fact legitimate and warrants protection before he imposes limitations on the use of the private or Crown land involved. There is no such procedure, especially in relation to emergency declarations. Under this legislation the Minister can not only make a declaration prohibiting people from entering their own land but also he can demand that the owner of a piece of land fence the area in question to stop others going on to that area without compensation being payable unless the courts consider that the Minister's declaration amounted to an acquisition. Of course it is not an acquisition in the true sense of the word. The land is not being purchased by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is merely limiting its use . Many believe that compensation would not be payable in such a case. The next question is what area of land can the Minister declare under this legislation. In fact he could use this Bill as if it were land rights legislation and make a declaration in relation to unlimited areas of land within Australia. The Minister responded to this claim in his second reading speech by saying this: I will not be making declaration with respect to vast areas of land in defacto recognition of a claim which Aboriginals may wish to make later under another law. It is extremely important that we note the limitation placed on the area of land that the Minister is willing to declare. He says he is not willing to declare vast areas of land. Vast, of course, implies a very large area of land, and its interesting to note that the Minister did not use the words 'substantial' or ' large'. In the Minister's second reading speech he said that the Bill 'is not meant to close off huge areas'. I put it to the House that in fact this guarded qualification is no qualification at all. The Minister's choice of words makes it clear that he will not hesitate to consider using this legislation as if it were land rights legislation. There is no limitation to the area of land that he could declare. I suppose there is only one other word he could have used to give the qualification less meaning, and that is if he said he was not going to use the legislation in respect of gigantic areas. The fact that the Minister did not use the words 'large' or 'very large' or even 'substantial' indicates that he is reserving to himself the greatest possible powers under this legislation. Not only is all land claimable under this legislation but also there is virtually no limit on the amount of land that can be claimed. There are additional areas of concern to the Opposition. In many instances of development in outback Australia, especially on Aboriginal land, mining companies and others enter into agreements with the owners regarding the use of the land. Those agreements cover sites to be avoided, and other arrangements are made if development is to proceed. This legislation throws those arrangements into doubt because whilst an agreement could be reached between a company and the traditional owners or land council this proposed Act provides an opportunity for a dissident Aboriginal to seek a declaration in relation to an area not covered by the existing arrangement which could put at risk the whole of the arrangement. In addition, under this legislation there is no requirement for the Aboriginal applicant to have a traditional affiliation with the land the subject of the application. I believe this introduces an intolerable element of uncertainty and confusion for those dealing with Aboriginal communities. Traditional owners and land councils could, in effect, lose control of their areas and Aboriginals could be barred from their own sacred sites, depending on the nature of the Minister's declaration. The Opposition has a number of very serious objections to the declaration provisions of this legislation and I shall deal with them in more detail at the Committee stage. I turn now to the question of the means of reviewing the Minister's decision. In the Minister's second reading speech he states: Review by the Houses of Parliament will, in effect, be the only review of the merits of the Minister's decision to make a declaration. The review by Parliament is by means of disallowance of the declaration within 15 sitting days after it has been made. In the Opposition's view this review is totally inadequate. If this legislation were to be passed by the Senate next week and the Minister made his first declaration next Friday, that decision would not be reviewable by this House until it resumed its sittings on 21 August . So a declaration could be in force for up to three months before it is subject to review by the Parliament. The fact that this is the only form of review of the merits of the Minister's decision is of fundamental concern to the Opposition. The discretionary powers of the Minister are too wide and the opportunity to review is meaningless. Where there has been a breach of a declaration made under this legislation the penalties to be imposed on an individual are extremely high. For example, if someone were to enter an area which the Minister had declared was an Aboriginal area into which entry was prohibited-it should be borne in mind that under this legislation there is no restriction on the size of the area that can be so declared-the penalty is a fine up to $10,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years. I shall deal with this in more detail at the Committee stage. However, I make the point in passing that the provisions for notification in clauses 10 and 18 are, in our view, in breach of natural justice. We believe that it is vital for people who have an interest which is likely to be affected by the making of a declaration to have an opportunity to put their case. The notice provisions do not guarantee that. In fact, under clause 18 no notice is to be served. Clause 18 deals with declarations made by authorised officers and these officers are not required to advise those who will be affected by a declaration. Not only are the penalties under this legislation very substantial but the provisions of this legislation requiring notification of declaration are deficient. The Government has tonight introduced further amendments to the legislation and whilst they overcome some of the objections the Opposition had in relation to the liability for penalty and the evidentiary provisions, the basis of our concern remains. This Bill does not relate to sacred sites but has much broader application. The Minister has almost totally unfettered powers to declare an area, and whilst the merit of his declaration may be reviewed by Parliament, I have already indicated this could still involve a substantial lapse of time between the making of the declaration and the review. Given the nature of the discretionary powers involved, the Opposition believes this is totally unsatisfactory. Compensation will be payable only if the declaration involves an acquisition and in most conceivable cases, even if severe limitations are put on the use of private land, this is unlikely to amount to an acquisition and therefore will not be compensatable. The legislation allows substantial ministerial discretion to be made especially in relation to the area of land claimed and even the Minister's qualification regarding how he intends to use the legislation is no limitation at all and provides no restriction on the powers this Bill confers. The legislation applies to all land and there is no guarantee that private interests will be protected. The Opposition opposes the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.52) —I take great pleasure, in fact sheer delight, in participating in the debate tonight on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984. I must begin by commenting on the speech we have just heard from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). What a pathetic contribution to emanate from the mouth of a shadow Minister in this Parliament. For all we knew we could have been witnessing a debate about the protection of miners' rights. We could have been witnessing a debate on some esoteric subject. We certainly were not witnessing a contribution at all helpful to an understanding of the Bill before the House or, most importantly, the issue that the Bill seeks to address, that is, the protection of Aboriginal sites of significance. I have joined the debate on this Bill because, like other members of the Government, I have been outraged by the contributions of those from the Liberal and National parties who oppose the Bill but particularly from individuals in the mining industry such as Mr Hugh Morgan who purportedly speak on behalf of the mining industry. The opposition to the Bill has been based on a campaign of misinformation and outright misrepresentation, but, more than anything else, has at its foundation the deliberate incitement to racial hatred. The Bill is, of course, one of the most historic pieces of legislation ever to come before the Parliament. It is the first important national legislation for the protection of Aboriginal rights ever enacted in the entire history of the Commonwealth Parliament. As the honourable member for Barker pointed out, the Commonwealth gained power to pass this law only in 1967 when the necessary Bill to amend the Constitution was passed, I remind honourable members, unanimously by this House and subsequently was ratified by a record 92.7 Yes vote of the Australian people . Despite the fact that that Bill was passed unanimously by the Parliament there were clearly very different views as to what might be achieved by the Commonwealth's newly acquired powers. The then Opposition Leader Whitlam stated in the House that as a result of the change 'the members of this Parliament will be able for the first time to do something for Aboriginals-Aboriginals representing the greatest pockets of poverty and disease in this country. The Commonwealth can at last bring the resources of the whole nation to bear in favour of Aboriginals where they live'. On the other hand, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), then Minister for Social Security, said following the passage of the referendum that the Government had 'nothing specific in mind' and that its policies would be worked out during the Budget discussions. What a tragedy that nothing has really changed in the Liberal and National parties and in their attitudes to Aboriginal affairs. The policies of this Government are directed towards building a society based on tolerance and mutual understanding. We do not seek confrontation but there comes a time to draw the line. In the debate on this legislation sections of the Australian mining industry and elements in the Opposition have transgressed the baseline of public and commercial morality and their record and actions should be publicly exposed and rejected by all concerned Australians. I stress that I do not seek to attack all members of the Opposition, because many honourable members on the Opposition benches have a genuine concern for the well being of Aboriginal Australians. Regrettably, however, in political terms the members of the Opposition parties in that category do not have the numbers and increasingly Opposition policies on questions of race are being dominated by the extreme right wing in those parties, particularly by a rump element in the now discredited National Party. This trend is evident in the soft policy of the Opposition on southern Africa, the desperate attempts to introduce racial prejudice as an element in the immigration debate, and now in the overt overtones evident in the opposition to the Bill. Likewise, I do not seek to condemn all sections of the mining industry because that industry has every right to express its views on the legislation before the House and on Aboriginal land rights. Some mining interests have indeed expressed opposition to the legislation in good faith. Those mining interests, in my opinion, have generally maintained good relationships with Aboriginal communities and have not sought to ride roughshod over the interests of the Aboriginal people. My comments are not directed towards that section of the industry nor to what I would describe as the concerned sections in the Opposition. I now turn to the real opponents of this legislation in the Opposition and in the ugly face of sections of the Australian mining industry. Following white colonisation, Aboriginal Australians-as a matter of historical record-were driven off their land by force and confined to reservations. This dispossession enabled the establishment of a large scale pastoral industry which continues to be a major part of the country's economy. A further stage in the exploitation of Aboriginal land and people was reached with the development of the mining industry. Mr White —You wouldn't be here if they had not- Mr TICKNER —No doubt that interjection came from the National Party. Members of that party know that they are treading on dangerous ground. They know that people in the rural community no longer look to the National Party for representation but rather to members of the Labor Party like the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler). Increasingly the National Party is seen to represent not just mining interests but multinational foreign mining interests and has deserted its constituency. Those telling facts will come home to roost at the next Federal election. The mining companies have frequently discovered minerals on land inhabited by Aborigines. With only limited recent exceptions, the Aborigines have been powerless to resist the pressure of powerful mining companies, particularly because of the ability of the foreign mining interests to enlist the support of Liberal and National Party-controlled State and Federal governments which have actively collaborated in using force and brutality to evict Aboriginal people from their land and to destroy places of particular significance to Aboriginal people in accordance with their traditions. It should be made crystal clear, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has repeatedly done, that the purpose of this Bill is not to enact Aboriginal land rights but to enact an interim measure to protect areas of significance and to ensure the protection of objects of particular significance to Aboriginals or Islanders in accordance with their traditions. In this regard I cannot help but comment on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation which only last Friday broadcast for almost the entire day a news story which said that this Bill was all about Aboriginal land rights. It has nothing to do with Aboriginal land rights. It is about time that the media lifted their game and paid Aboriginal land rights the attention that it deserves as we lead up to the Australian Bicentenary. The legislation before the House has become particularly urgent because of the unrestrained activities of mining companies which have led to the destruction of sites of sacred religious significance to Aboriginal communities. To add insult to injury, mining development has failed to generate significant employment opportunities and where jobs have been provided the working conditions were sometimes so bad that major occupational health hazards were created, as at the James Hardie Baryugal asbestos mine. It is clear that the activities of some mining companies clearly constitute the cutting edge of efforts to destroy what remains of Aboriginal culture and sites of significance. Let me demonstrate the appalling record of the mining industry which makes this legislation necessary. In 1969 Nabalco Pty Ltd, a company owned by Alsuisse, and in which Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd, CSR Ltd, Peko-Wallsend and the AMP Society had substantial interests, was granted bauxite strip mining rights over 80 square miles of the Arnhem Land reserve. Nabalco was granted a large part of the land of the Yirrkala Aborigines around the mission settlement on a lease that did not expire until the year 2053. Nabalco plundered the land and the people and what was once one of the most culturally intact societies in Australia has suffered disastrously. Despite the efforts of Methodist missionaries to support the people and an historic attempt by those Aboriginal people to use the whit legal system to protect their community, the mining companies were again victorious. Nothing has changed for the majority of Aboriginal people since 1969. At Noonkanbah in 1980 in Western Australia we saw another case study of the relationship of mining companies to Aboriginal people. The Yungngora tribe has lived in this part of Western Australia since time immemorial and at that time held a pastoral lease over an area of land on which a co-operative cattle station was run. On this property was a site called Pea Hill which was of great significance to the Aboriginal people. The United States oil company, Amax Exploration, with the complicity of the former Western Australian conservative government, obtained licences to drill for oil at Pea Hill. Extensive opposition by tribal elders, churches and trade unions was ignored and eventually the police and mining interest led a military style convoy of 50 trucks to Pea Hill and brutally evicted those making a last stand there. In the light of this appalling confrontationist record of the mining industry and of conservative governments, Mr Hugh Morgan of the Australian Mining Industry Council and the honourable member for Barker, who is the shadow Minister, have the gall to talk about the lack of consultation in relation to the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites. While I am speaking about the honourable member for Barker, I want to say what a double the Opposition parties have dealt up to this Parliament on two sensitive areas of government administration. The track record of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs is becoming legendary in debates in this House. In another crucial area, Aboriginal affairs, the honourable member for Barker is becoming a joke in Aboriginal communities right across Australia. I turn my attention again to the record of the Australian mining giant, Conzinc Riotinto. Some five years ago a vast deposit of diamonds was discovered in the Kimberly Mountains of Western Australia. CRA and Ashton Mining formed a joint venture to exploit the estimated $2 billion plus deposit. The diamond resource was located in a sacred site. The joint venturers claimed to have a contract by which Aboriginal people consented to the mining of diamonds. However, neither the local Aboriginal land council nor the traditional owners were parties to the contract. The agreement was signed with this corporate master of dirty tricks by one family. They were flown 2,000 kilometres to Perth to negotiate with the company. The agreement with Ashton was appropriately described by Mr Phillip Adams as 'a pitiful barter of pocket knives, mirrors and beads for perhaps the richest piece of real estate on earth'. As further evidence of the dirty corporate behaviour of CRA, undertaken to advance its unrestraining ravaging of Aboriginal sites of significance, I wish to refer to a leaked internal company document of the Ashton joint venture which has been made publicly available. The document is dated November 1980 and states: A public relations program for 1981 will be concerned principally with the following issues: 1. Sustaining the Argyle Agreement signed with the Glen Hill Aboriginal community and isolating this agreement from the general debate on Aboriginal land rights, while encouraging community acceptance of the company's policy towards its Aboriginal neighbours. As well as being intended to put a favourable gloss on the joint venturers' notorious Aboriginal policies, the public relations programs were also intended to achieve favourable government action in relation to the processing of diamonds. The campaign in this regard was also notably successful. I find this document a devastating expose of the corporate practice that this internal company document reveals. In one year, 1981, CRA and its joint venture partners proposed to spend $374,000 on public relations. The primary task of this public relations jaunt was to whitewash the appalling treatment by the joint venture of Aboriginal people living in the vicinity of the mine. The $374,000 spent on public relations dwarfs the annual payment of only $40, 000 paid to one of the three adjacent Aboriginal communities. However, the weight and strength of transnational corporate power is not going to win this debate because the tide is changing and the Government is committed to ensuring the passage of the legislation before the House which is both a moderate and a modest measure to ensure minimum standards of protection to Aboriginal significant sites and objects which also have particular significance to Aboriginals or Islanders because of their traditions. The legislation will fill a gap in the law of Australia which can allow sites of significance to be changed, destroyed or desecrated and can allow objects of significance, including Aboriginal human remains, to be traded, displayed or otherwise used in ways which are anathema to Aboriginals and their traditions. The detailed provisions of the Bill have been outlined by the Minister in his second reading speech. I am constrained by time from proceeding to those provisions. Criticism has been expressed concerning certain limited provisions of the Bill which provide maximum penalties for individuals for certain breaches of the Act of a fine of up to $10,000 and five years gaol and, in the case of corporations, fines of up to $50,000. This does merit special attention by me. These are, indeed, substantial penalties for violation of Aboriginal places of special significance. However, I ask non-Aboriginal Australians to remember that they have long had protection. In fact draconian criminal law provisions have long been enshrined in the Australian criminal law to protect places of special significance to them. I refer to section 106 of the New South Wales Crimes Act which creates the crime of sacrilege. If the mining companies were to perpetrate their consultation by bulldozer in a non-Aboriginal established place of worship they would, under the New South Wales Act, be liable to a penalty of 20 years gaol. I conclude by again stating that this legislation cannot be considered as any form of Aboriginal land rights. This is the first legislation of the Parliament since Federation which seeks directly to protect what remains of Aboriginal culture and significant sites, after 196 years of neglect. The legislation is so important that it deserves better treatment at the hands of the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(11.10) —The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage ( Interim Protection) Bill, in my view, can be described only as a social timebomb . I listened very carefully to the contribution that was just made by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). He outlined in considerable detail the impact that mining companies have had on various parts of Australia. I can only conclude that, by implication, the honourable member was suggesting that the mining developments that he mentioned and perhaps others that he did not mention should not have been developed, rather the products of those mining ventures should have been left in the ground and not used for the benefit either of people in this country or people in other countries. That is the only conclusion that I can reach from the comments that were made by the honourable member for Hughes. The honourable member mentioned other things in which I share his concern. He mentioned the potential that this Bill has for racial prejudice and violence. He also mentioned the possibility flowing from this Bill of a right wing backlash that could cause racial prejudice and violence. In that regard I totally share the honourable member's concern. I believe that we need to look very carefully- in doing that we ought not to be influenced by partisan bias-at what is happening in the community of Australia. We ought not to be influenced by our own partisan political viewpoints, rather we ought to be influenced by the people of this country. People who come into this House who believe that by the power of legislation they can cause the changing of the viewpoints of the people of Australia are doing no more than deceiving themselves. Honourable members in this place can only reflect the viewpoints of the people of this country. If we try to do other than that we cause a backlash that we cannot control. Over a period there has been a political infiltration into the Aboriginal organisations of this country. That has caused the very genuine and needed protection in matters affecting Aboriginals to be used for blatant political purposes. That has been coming from those agitated, left wing- Mr Gayler —What about-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Leichhardt must not interject when he is not sitting in his own seat. Mr BURR —Madam Deputy Speaker, I must pause to concur with what you say. Quite frankly, I feel very sorry for the people of Leichhardt who voted for such an overweight, unintelligent clown. I am sure they will change their minds at the next election. I share the concern of the honourable member for Hughes that the agitation that has been evident for some considerable time by left wing political agitators within the Aboriginal movement is now causing a right wing backlash. That should be of great concern to everyone in this House. We are now seeing a confrontation between right wing and left wing groups in this country with the Aboriginals being the meat in the sandwich. Nothing in that will help the Aboriginals nor will it protect their land, sacred sites, culture or anything else. Credibility is being given to people such as Geoff McDonald, to people in the League of Rights and other right wing groups that is not justified. The reason they are being given that credibility is that there is a genuine concern throughout the community. If we ignore that concern we do so at our great peril. To ignore that concern and simply be influenced by our own political bias is to incite the very racial prejudice and violence that this Bill has the potential to cause. It gives rise to the concern of the honourable member for Hughes. To ignore that concern of the people of Australia is folly in the extreme. I urge my friends on the other side of the House not to be dominated by their own party dogma and doctrine but to give serious thought to the direction in which the community of Australia wants this matter to go. It is not the winning of a brownie point in this House that is of concern. The real concern is the Aboriginals and what will happen to them as a consequence. I assure the House that the Opposition has great respect for the Aboriginal people. We have great respect for their culture, their religions and the contributions that they can make to the future of this country. We do not want to see class or racial hatred being inflamed in this country because we respect the Aboriginal people, their culture and what they can contribute to this country. This Bill will incite that sort of class hatred with all the potential it has for violence, disruption and beyond. This legislation gives advantages and privileges to one class of people because of the colour of their skin. Other Australians who do not have the same skin colour or are not of the same racial background will be denied those privileges and advantages. That is apartheid. Apartheid is being practised in this country by this Government. I share the abhorrence of the apartheid being practised in other countries and I know that my colleagues on this side of the House do also. We strongly urge the Government not to introduce apartheid practices in this country. Apartheid does not only give rise to white prejudice against black people; it can be the same in reverse. That is what is happening. Because of my respect and concern for the Aboriginal people I wish to see the preservation of Aboriginal sacred sites, tribal laws and culture. As was pointed out recently by Professor Blainey during the immigration debate, government action and legislation cannot be allowed to move ahead of public opinion. That is precisely what this Government is doing with this legislation. In a recent Press statement the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) described this Bill as ill-considered and dangerous. I concur with him. It certainly has that potential. It is ill-considered because it takes no account of public opinion. It is dangerous because it has the potential to incite violent racial clashes in many parts of this country. The major problem in framing policies for Aboriginals is to distinguish between what I class as various categories of Aboriginals. That is something with which nobody in this country seems to be prepared to come to terms. By accepting the definition of an Aborigine as outlined in the Bill as one who identifies as an Aborigine and is accepted by others as being an Aborigine, the Government is ignoring the different problems faced by people of Aboriginal descent. People who are part Aboriginal and who have different problems from full-blooded Aboriginals are completely ignored in this Bill and they are completely ignored in all the Aboriginal policies that have been framed over the years. I assure the House that there are differences. For honourable members not to come to grips with those differences is not, in the longer term, helping the Aboriginal people or their heritage. Equally, we should look objectively at the different problems being faced by those people living in urban areas, fringe dwellers and those living on tribal land. The problems faced by each of those groups are quite distinctly different. Simply to lump all these people into one big basket and to try to come up with blanket solutions is quite unrealistic and we simply cannot do it. That is what this Bill proposes. There are differences in the problems being faced by Aboriginals in different circumstances. We need to look objectively at the different problems they face. We need to come up with different solutions. Clearly, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is accepting proposals put to him by so-called spokesmen for the Aboriginal movement. However , many of these spokesmen are left wing political agitators who are using the Aboriginal people as pawns in their political game. To these people helping the Aboriginals takes second place to causing disruption in a strategically placed Western democracy. I believe we may have heard some evidence of that given in an earlier contribution by the honourable member for Hughes. These people should be condemned by all Australians for their callous disregard and abuse of the Aboriginal people, but the fact that the Minister accedes to the demands of political agitation rather than to the genuine Aboriginals should be condemned and demonstrates just how out of touch this Minister is. The Government is introducing this Bill to give greater claim to land rights for the Aboriginals. The Aboriginals claim to have a close affinity with the land and I have no doubt whatever that they have. But I remind the House that I too have a close affinity with the land because my people have been farmers for 300 years but I do not claim land rights. It is my view that Aboriginals have no greater claim to land than people of any other origin. The fact that they have occupied land for a considerable time does not give Aborigines or any other people the absolute ownership of that land. We must always remember that the land belongs to God and we are simply here for a short time as caretakers of that land. The fact that land and other natural assets have been provided by God does not mean that one group of people has greater claim to those assets than other people and therefore can dictate who can and who cannot enjoy those God- given assets. Surely the benefits of those things provided by God are for the maintenance and benefit of mankind regardless of where they live or what the colour of their skin is. The Aboriginal people have a marvellous communal spirit that I greatly envy and that encourages those people to look after and help each other, and I greatly admire them for that. Why then do so-called spokesmen for Aboriginals try to deny other people access to the beauty of the land, to urgently needed minerals, to the productive capacity of that land that could help feed starving people? I cannot conceive that genuine Aboriginal people would be so selfish but I do accept that politically motivated agitators would deny those things to mankind. This Bill can be described only as apartheid. It encourages separate development depending on the colour of a person's skin. I notice the Minister laughs. Mr Holding —What crap! Mr BURR —The Minister says: 'What crap'. I hope that will be recorded by Hansard . Why this Minister and his Government are so intent on purposely and provocatively introducing apartheid into this country escapes me. We on this side of the House understand and accept the need to preserve significant Aboriginal sacred sites just as we accept the sanctity of places held sacred by people who have different religious beliefs. But significant Aboriginal sacred sites do not include half the Northern Territory nor does it give carte blanche to claim any area in Australia, which is precisely what my friend and colleague the honourable member for Barker has pointed out that this Bill does. As one who rejects extremist politics of both the Left and the Right I am concerned at the invidious position that the Aboriginal people are being placed in. Marxist extremists have infiltrated and are using the Aboriginal organisations for extremist and disruptive purposes. That is now starting to cause this right wing backlash that I spoke of earlier and is giving credence to right wing extremist organisations. That backlash, as it is being accepted now by the community and as I have said has been given a credence that it does not deserve because of the widespread community concern, has all the potential to cause racial violence in this country. If the Government ignores that potential and ignores that community concern I assure it, the House and the Aboriginal people of this country that it does so at its own peril. I for one do not want to see the sort of racial and religious backlash that we have seen in countries such as England, Lebanon, Sri Lanka and other places of the world. Thankfully, we have managed to keep those things out of Australia and I hope we will always be able to keep them out of Australia. However this Bill could well introduce such differences, and potentially dangerous differences, into this country. As I have said this Bill has the potential to cause widespread disruption in Australia, to incite violent and racial clashes on a scale that we have not seen in this country. Rather than help preserve the Aboriginal people, their culture and their religions, it has all the potential to destroy the Aboriginal people, to destroy their culture and to destroy their religion. If the Minister has any genuine concern for the Aboriginal people I strongly urge him to see the dangers of this Bill and have it withdrawn immediately. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TICKNER —Most definitely. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TICKNER —The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) is a hard act to follow even by way of a brief personal explanation. Mr Rocher —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member may make his personal explanation, with your indulgence, at the end of this debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr TICKNER —The honourable member for Wilmot, in his contribution, stated repeatedly that I had said that the effect of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill was to incite racial hatred. I simply wish to have it noted that there is no possible way that what I said could be interpreted legitimately in that fashion as the honourable will see when he reads Hansard. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.28) —The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) referred to a gentleman-if I can call him a gentleman-by the name of Geoffrey McDonald. He criticised Geoffrey McDonald although on 2 May he referred to him as an expert on migration questions. The honourable member for Wilmot stated: I do not believe the Government alone is the perpetrator of this master plan. I believe it is the innocent fool, if I can put it that way, which is being led by others of a more sinister nature. For the benefit of the Minister and the House I will quote from a book entitled Red Over Black, written by an Aboriginal named Geoff McDonald. Not only was the honourable member for Wilmot quoting a person who is one of the greatest racists in our society but he is also quoting a person who is not an Aboriginal. So in an immigration debate he is quoting a person who is a known racist and claims that he is proud of his political beliefs and in this debate which is about Aborigines he is quoting an expert, claiming he is an Aboriginal which the gentleman is not. I think that puts to pay the views that have been expressed by the honourable member for Wilmot. This legislation is historic and I am proud to be part of a government which has the moral conscience and the political strength to bring it forward. I remind the House of the policy on which the Australian Labor Party, of which I am a member, campaigned at the last election. Page 5 of the Federal platform concerning Aborigines and Islanders policy states that we will: 7 Take responsibility, where necessary- (a) for the establishment of representative councils of Aborigines and Islanders, for securing identification and protection of sacred sites including women's sacred sites and other sites of significance; and (b) for preserving sacred objects and other valued articles belonging to Aboriginal and Islander people, including those objects in museums and storage. 8 Assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' guardians and custodians to regain and preserve objects of cultural and spiritual significance. 9 Develop, in co-operation with the states and territories, effective Aboriginal heritage legislation. Although that statement was made at election time, people ought to be able to understand from it that we are committed to the views expressed in the legislation. Tonight we are debating the legislation and we are, in fact, going to pass it. I remind the House of what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) said in his second reading speech. He stated: This Bill has two main purposes: To preserve and protect areas in Australia and Australian waters which are of particular significance to Aboriginals or Islanders in accordance with their traditions; and to preserve and protect objects, including Aboriginal and Islander human remains, which are of particular significance to Aboriginals or Islanders in accordance with their traditions. The Hawke Labor Government came to office in March 1983 with a mandate to pursue its constitutional responsibilities to advance the interests of the Aboriginal people. A very significant step towards advancing the position of the Aboriginal people in this country is that of recognising Aboriginal culture as a living culture and of ensuring the security and protection of Aboriginal sacred sites and Aboriginal sacred objects. Mr Rocher —Who wrote this? Mr HAND —If the honourable member came over here, I doubt whether he would be able to read it. It should be clearly understood that Aboriginal people consider this legislation to be less than adequate and they look forward to the enactment of comprehensive legislation which will provide a greater control of the protection of sacred sites and objects. It is good to see the shadow spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs in here tonight. I well recall his being absent for most of the discussion on the expenditure for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs when the Appropriation Bills were debated. It is interesting and good to see him present tonight, although his speech was full of inaccuracies. He accused members on this side of the House of not having read the Bill. For the benefit of the record I will read from the explanatory memorandum the section relating to clauses 9 and 10 of Division 1-Declarations by Minister of Part II-Protection of Significant Aboriginal Areas and Objects which states: These clauses provide the scheme for the making of declarations by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in relation to areas of land or water of particular significance to Aboriginals. Clause 9: Emergency declarations in relation to areas 11. On receipt of an application by or on behalf of Aboriginals, the Minister may make a declaration containing provisions for and in relation to the protection and preservation of an area from injury or desecration . . . Before making the declaration the Minister will need to be satisfied that the area is a significant Aboriginal area which is under serious and immediate threat of injury or desecration. Such an emergency declaration will have effect for not more than 30 days, although the Minister may extend the effect of the declaration for a further period up to 60 days from the day from which the declaration first came into effect. Clause 10: Other declarations in relation to areas. 12. If the Minister receives an application as in clause 9, and he is satisfied that a threat exists, but it is not serious and immediate, he may make a declaration in similar terms to those outlined in clause 9. However, unlike the emergency declaration, he will also be required to have received and considered a report in respect of the application from a person nominated by him. The person will publish a notice inviting interested persons to make representations in connection with the report. He will give due consideration to any such representations and will attach them to the report. That report will deal with a range of matters relevant to the Minister's decision whether to make a declaration, and the contents and duration of any such declaration. In making his decision the Minister may consider such other matters as he thinks relevant. The declaration will have effect for such period as is specified in it. There is no mention of the two years that was stated by the shadow spokesman. The reference to two years is in the Minister's speech and deals with the lifetime of this Bill. Mr Ruddock —It has a sunset clause. Mr HAND —That is right. Clauses 9 and 10 show quite clearly that the Minister is bound to protect the interests of all parties involved in the declaration in relation to areas. The Minister has the same sort of responsibility-it is required of him-in regard to declarations in relation to objects in following clauses in the Bill. A later section of the Minister's second reading speech deals with State and Territory laws, another area which honourable members on the other side have misrepresented. For the purpose of the record it is well worth repeating what the Minister said. He stated: The Commonwealth is not attempting to cover the legislative field in this area of heritage protection. The Bill expresses an intention not to exclude or limit the operation of a law of a State or Territory that is capable of operating concurrently with it. In practice the Commonwealth sees this as legislation to be used as a last resort. The processes for the making and continuation of declarations will ensure that full recognition will be given to relevant State and Territory laws, and co-operation will be sought from State and Territory governments. Where the Minister is considering whether to make a declaration in relation to an area, an object or a class of objects, he will be obliged to consult the relevant State or Territory Minister to ascertain whether there is effective protection of the area, object or objects. In the case of Norfolk Island he will consult the relevant Executive Member. By reference to long-standing convention, he will consult the Minister for Territories and Local Government . . . where the Australian Capital Territory or an external Territory, other than Norfolk Island is concerned. Again the Bill states that we will consult all parties. This Bill complements State legislation. Many lies and half truths have been told by people in relation to the legislation. For that matter, proof is available that the coalition and the conservative forces have banded together with people referred to by the honourable member for Wilmot, such as Geoff McDonald, to hold back any legislation that would advantage Aboriginals. We have an incredible coalition of forces relating to ethnic affairs and Aborigines. I wonder which will be the next one in our society to jump on the bandwagon-which of the ratbag elements in our society-and seek to discredit for cheap political gain at election time. These forces whip up fear and frenzy in the community, frightening people as they did at Frankston, in the electorate of the honourable member for Flinders ( Mr Chynoweth) the other night and which they will be doing in the electorate of Wannon next week. I refer to people such as Geoff McDonald and Bruce Ruxton. What a notable pair to have on a platform! Conservative parties such as the Liberals and the Nationals have joined forces with the League of Rights, led by Geoff McDonald and other disreputable individuals throughout Victoria. Members of those parties have been joining up with the National Front. This is the organisation that is waging the campaign against Asian migrants. These people throughout Victoria have come together on the land rights issue. They are led by people such as Bruce Ruxton from the Returned Services League. These people out in the community are distorting the truth and creating fear in the non- Aboriginal community. To back up and get support for my claim I refer to the Age of 31 May 1984. The editorial is headed 'How the Right gets it wrong'. The editorial states: There are many statistics-as in 'lies, damned lies and statistics'-being thrown around in what could be loosely termed the debate on Aboriginal land rights. There are also ambit claims, exaggerations, outrageous statements and attempts, thinly disguised or otherwise, to appeal to all that is selfish, nasty and racist in the Australian character: land rights will enable Aborigines to build a separate nation; Aborigines are only the stalking horses for communists in their bid to take over Australia; industry will halt and the lights will go out as Aborigines ban all mining; sacred sites are invented for greed, and, of course, recognition of the principle of land rights gives a blessing to cannibalism. I repeat that this is a statement in the Melbourne Age, not a statement by honourable members on this side of the House, referring to members of the Opposition parties at the grass roots level in Victoria. The Age is talking about members of the National and Liberal parties in the State Parliament who are out beating the drum throughout Victoria. Mr Chynoweth —Dorothy Turner. Mr HAND —One such person in Frankston is Dorothy Turner, a prominent member of the National Party in the Frankston Area. Honourable members should go down through Wannon and Corangamite and those areas. The two honourable members sitting opposite know exactly the people I am talking about. If they want to get up and claim that such people are friends of theirs, that is all right with me. At least the people will see. I return to the Age editorial. It states: In rural Victoria the extreme Right is on the march, spreading alarm about the Victorian Government's Aboriginal Land-- Mr Tuckey —Do that again and I will take on your mate. I have not mentioned that . Mr HAND —The honourable member should be quiet. The last time he had anything to do with an Aborigine his brother held him while he hit him over the head with an iron bar. Now he should be quiet. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Melbourne will cease making the remarks he made and continue with his speech. Mr HAND —I will get back to the Age editorial. I never thought the Age could whip up such excitement on the other side. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will ignore the interjections. Mr HAND —The Age states: In rural Victoria, the extreme Right is on the march, spreading alarm about the Victorian Government's Aboriginal Land Claims Bill, casting wild and ugly conspiracy theories on to ground which, unfortunately, is, here and there, fertile. Obviously, that refers to Corangamite, Wannon Gippsland and Frankston. The editorial goes on: The Bill itself, in principle, is a sensible attempt to do a measure of justice to Victorian Aborigines and to provide them with means to overcome the devastating effects of dispossession and life as social and economic outcasts in what was their forebears' land . . . The extreme Right has seized upon, and distorted, the State Government's purchase of land at Lake Condah- that is in the electorate of the honourable member for Wannon- a 150th birthday project . . . That is what the Melbourne Age thinks about the State Liberal Party and National Party in Victoria led by Kennett and Ross-Edwards who are out beating the drum and turning non-Aboriginal people against Aboriginal people right throughout Victoria. I turn now to the miners. I refer to an advertisement which appeared in the Canberra Times on 31 May 1984. Six points were made in the advertisement. Some outrageous claims were made, not dissimilar to claims being made by the League of Rights and other people. As time is running away from me, I will not read them over. However, they are there for those people who want to go back to that Canberra Times and have a look at it. A number of accusations were made. However, every one of those accusations is untrue. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) can grin, but I am coming to him. He will grin a bit more when I am finished with him. The honourable member for Barker comes in here tonight and talks about what the State Labor Caucus of Western Australia does, what we as members of the Labor Party are to do at our Federal Conference and what goes on in our Cabinet rooms, et cetera. I remind the honourable member for Barker that those organisations have expressed support for this legislation. The Victorian, New South Wales, South Australian and Western Australian governments now support the Bill following the amendments to it. The Director of the Northern Territory Sacred Sites Authority, Mr Ellis, has expressed the view: As it stands the Bill is a sensible and sensitive attempt to balance the various community needs and viewpoints and its passage will enable resolution of present and future potential conflicts in our State and Territories. The National Aboriginal Conference has advised by telex that it supports the legislation. The honourable member for Barker comes in here tonight, having misread the Bill and makes wild accusations about people over here who have tried to correct him and get him on the right side of things. During Question Time today he was only $720,000 out in a Press release that was circulated to the Aboriginal community. That can only be described as an untruth, given that we are not allowed to say that other word in this place. However, everybody else would use the word we are not allowed to say. A person who wants to be a Minister in this place was $720,000 out in a Press release. It is a disgrace. I now refer to a telex from the National Aboriginal Conference to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It states: I wish to clarify some matters concerning the Opposition spokesman for Aboriginal affairs, Mr James Porter. 1. The NAC has not discussed the interim heritage legislation in any depth at any stage. 2. The NAC is of the view that Mr Porter has not adequately consulted with Aboriginal people, either through their recognised advisors to the Federal Government, the NAC, or by any other means. 3. The NAC intends to ask that Mr Porter be transferred out of the portfolio- that is, the shadow portfolio- due to: (A) his failure to consult with Aboriginal people or their representatives. (B) his sellout of Aboriginal interests for mining interests shown by his ill- considered comments in the media on the Bill. What do we have here? We have a shadow Minister for the Aboriginal affairs portfolio whom the people he is supposed to represent want removed. The New South Wales ethnic communities want to remove the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) from his portfolio. I wonder how many other community groups want people removed from the front bench opposite. I suggest that they keep the telegrams and letters coming in because we will keep reading them out. This Bill will prevent problems such as that we had in Tasmania over the Crowther collection of relics which were brought about by the insensitivity of the Tasmanian Government which-I remind people-declared overnight that there were no Aboriginals in Tasmania. When it had a funding problem with the last Federal Government overnight they all just disappeared, even though the Tasmanian Government was receiving money for other programs to assist Tasmanian Aborigines. We will put an end to problems such as those which occurred in regard to the Roxby Downs project at Olympic Dam. I reject the comments made regarding that project and the effects it had on the Bill, as put by the shadow spokesman. The Kokatha people are glad we have introduced the Bill. I urge the shadow spokesman to talk to the Kokatha people and other communities which he has not done. I have been with him in various places and he has not talked to people once about this Bill when I have been with him, and I have been present at many Aboriginal meetings with him and he has not raised it once. Quite a number of other problems have occurred at Alice Springs. The Sotheby's auctions have occurred, at which Aboriginal relics have been sold. This Bill puts an end to all of those problems. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.48) —Probably the worst feature of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill is that it has been brought to this House without adequate consultation. Indeed, one of the professed objectives of the Hawke Labor Government has been to achieve consensus among people on issues of great importance to the community, both economic and social. I am very concerned that that consultation has not occurred, either with the State governments or with the interested organisations. Indeed, I believe that this legislation has a potential to cause anxiety and divisiveness in the community. It is the type of legislation that should at least lie on the table during the winter recess to enable proper consultation to take place and to avoid the sort of social backlash that I believe could flow from it. The draconian provisions in the legislation vest in the Minister for Aboriginal affairs extraordinary powers over the property rights of Australian citizens and in this society they are important and precious rights. Those property rights range from a farm to a suburban allotment to a mine on a mining prospect. This legislation has the potential to inflame racial differences between Australians, black and white, and in certain areas could cause a racial backlash against Aboriginal people who have earned a great deal of respect and community goodwill in recent times. It has been a long, hard road for those who have been concerned with Aboriginal rights and the social problems of Aboriginal people to condition the mind of the average Australian to the view that Aborigines should get special treatment to lift their self-esteem and their capacity to take their proper place in the Australian community. But I fear that this legislation will not achieve that sort of objective. I represent an electorate that contains a large number of Aboriginal people and where there can be racial difficulties from time to time in many of its towns. This legislation affects or could affect many Australians. I believe it is an attack on our most cherished democratic right-that is, the property right of people. This legislation vests extraordinary powers in the hands of the Minister to achieve a professed objective to enable the Minister to declare areas of significance to Aborigines. It gives extensive powers to the Minister to make declarations of areas of significance to Aborigines, and not just significant sacred sites. The Opposition strongly supports both the recognition and the preservation of significant sacred sites for Aboriginal people. This legislation can apply to all land throughout Australia, whether it is private, Crown, rural or urban land. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) attempts to water down the interpretation of the powers by saying that the Bill does not intend the powers to be used so widely. Therefore, I ask the question: Why does he not amend the legislation to make the law clear? That would, for instance, clear up the matter of what land is involved. 'Areas of significance' is a very wide definition of the type of land or object that is likely to be considered within the purview of this legislation. I believe that if the Minister redrafted the legislation it would alleviate some of the very valid fears held by a wide range of community bodies, although other basic flaws in the legislation would remain. I urge the Minister to take another look at what he is doing. He should at least attempt to obtain a greater degree of community support for the Bill than presently exists. The Minister is seeking virtually unlimited discretion in choosing which areas or objects will be declared to be of significance to Aborigines. The Minister decides the restrictions and conditions applying to this declaration and the length of time that the declaration will remain in force. The Minister would be free to grab whatever land or objects he sees fit, the only controlling factor being the extent of the political backlash that he thought it might provoke. It is this sort of legislation that provides the weapon for the sort of extremist that none of us like. This legislation places every Australian landowner at the whim and mercy of a Minister. Mr Holding —That is nonsense. Mr HUNT —It does, indeed-or his delegate. The legislation threatens to produce deep internal division between Aboriginal Australians and other Australians. Why is it that the Labor Government wants to give itself effective control over land rightly belonging to the citizens of this nation in the manner which this legislation enables? This legislation is riddled with blatant attacks on the rights of the Australian people. The powers of the Minister to make declarations on sites and objects are retrospective. He is unfettered in applying these powers to existing farmland, farm buildings, mines and all other objects on any land. There is no provision to serve notice prior to any declaration; there is no provision to compensate land owners affected by such declaration. Application for takeover of areas or objects need not be made by a person who claims association with such areas or objects. The application can be made by any Aboriginal or by anyone acting on behalf of an Aboriginal. That is spelt out in the legislation. The Minister has failed to indicate how he will satisfy himself that an area is significant to Aboriginal people. He requires no verification of that significance. The Minister has open powers to appoint officers who may then make emergency declarations without reference to him. This Parliament has no authority to review those declarations. Further, there is no right of appeal by any person or persons affected by this action. Any soothing statements by the Minister that he does not intend a massive land grab are given the lie by the huge penalties imposed for contravention of a declaration. The reason we have this legislation is that we must have specific statutes under which to operate in a democratic society. However, the Minister has given strong assurances to this Parliament that the Bill will not be used to declare huge areas. He said he will not use the powers for claims in relation to private property. As I understand it, the Minister has said he will take into account the impact of declarations on other affected parties. He will provide adequate compensation-I understand that he has said this-and ensure full recognition and encouragement is given to the use of State and Territory legislation in preference to Commonwealth legislation. But why does the Bill not say so? The fact is that the Government can slide out from under these assurances if it wishes under the terms of the legislation. The legislation ought to be taken away and redrafted so it will achieve its stated aims and not bring in a law which provides powers that can be misinterpreted, misrepresented and misunderstood. The Australian Mining Industry Council has compiled an excellent critique of the Bill which points up flaws in most of the 32 clauses. The reaction of our mining industry is this: The fact that the Bill is described as 'interim' legislation with a life of only two years is no answer to these substantial criticisms. The mining industry's reaction continued: The Bill should be withdrawn from Parliament to permit full consultation which has not taken place thus far. The response of the mining industry is echoed by primary producers. All these people defend the rights of Aborigines to have protection for strictly defined sacred sites-and so they should. It is recognised that this may involve some compulsory acquisition of land. Indeed, most State governments have effectively legislated to protect such sites. In a discussion paper circulated earlier this week the National Farmers Federation stated: The Bill confers power which far exceeds that required to achieve the purposes of the Act, namely the preservation and protection of sacred sites and objects. The Federation, however, goes on to say that the Bill confers a totally unacceptable level of ministerial discretion, particularly in relation to ' emergency declarations'. The paper continues. The substantial powers of interpretation vested in the Minister, the extreme vagueness of key definitions and the absence of adequate criteria to apply much of the proposed law has created a Bill which is a legal nightmare. I think that Bill has the capacity to create an awful uproar in the Australian community because of the way in which the legislation was drafted. Whether or not it was intended to draft the legislation in that way, the fact remains that it has been drafted in a very sloppy, slipshod manner. Mr Holding —I doubt whether you have read it, frankly. Mr HUNT —I have indeed read it. Why should Australians be subjected to the perpetual uncertainty which this Bill would make into law? The legislation is a clumsy step to achieve what I regard as a very vague purpose. There is great concern about the legislation among a great number of representative organisations. The Government would do itself, the Australian community and, indeed, the Aboriginal people a great service by laying this legislation on the table, consulting all the interest groups and at least attempting to remove the anxieties that have been created by vesting so much power in the hands of a Minister. It is a draconian and divisive piece of legislation and should be withdrawn from this Parliament. Friday, 1 June 1984 Mr MAHER(Lowe)(12 midnight) —The Bill before the House is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984. It deals with the heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. It does not deal with land rights. It is an interim protection measure, which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and members on this side of the House have stressed. Unfortunately, Opposition members apparently have not appreciated that it is an interim measure dealing with the heritage of the Aboriginal people. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) talked about this Bill being a blatant attack on the Australian people. At this hour of the night members are tired and I believe that the honourable member for Gwydir became somewhat carried away. There is compensation on just terms. I can assure him that the country people in this nation are proud of the Aboriginal people and their traditions. This was shown in 1967 when every electorate in Australia voted to give the Commonwealth power to make laws for the Aboriginal people. Overwhelmingly the Australian people showed their good sense in all electorates, even the ones that one could expect not to have voted in favour of the proposal. Every electorate voted to give the power to the Commonwealth to help the Aboriginal people. At the time of that referendum I was for the first time Secretary of a Labor Party Federal Council. I organised door-to-door canvassing to get that referendum through. I had hoped also to break the nexus in the Senate, but the people determined the answer otherwise. The Australian people to whom I spoke were very anxious that the Aboriginal people be advanced, that there be help for them and that they have a fair go. It is a long time since 1967. Anyone born in that year would almost be voting now. Nothing has happened. There has not been the advance that the Australian people hoped for and voted for in their ballots in that great referendum in 1967. I have relatives in the electorate of the honourable member for Gwydir-many of them, as the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) can attest to. I asked an old aunt: 'Were there many Aborigines around Dubbo and Peak Hill when your mother was alive, or in your day?' She said that when her mother was a girl there were many Aborigines around Peak Hill and Dubbo but they were all rounded up and taken to Bourke, which is also in the electorate of Gwydir. Now the possibility of the Aboriginal people establishing sacred sites in Peak Hill, Dubbo or any other area in the electorate of the honourable member for Gwydir 100 years since all the Aboriginal people were forcibly taken away is, I would think, somewhat remote. I assure all the constituents of the honourable member for Gwydir that it is a manifestation of hysteria to say that this legislation is a blatant attack on the Australian people. This is total nonsense and for anyone to oppose the emergency declaration is quite incredible. All of the States have planning and environment departments with laws to protect important buildings, European buildings and early structures in this country. In all such legislative proposals the States have emergency powers for a Minister to intervene. It is an emergency if a bulldozer is entering a property and about to run down and destroy a sacred site. What is the loss if an emergency declaration is made and if, as the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) says will be the case, the mining company has to wait three months? The minerals have been in the ground for millions of years. They will not go away or deteriorate. Perhaps the price is falling or changing but we no longer bring on stream the quick extraction of minerals. Mining companies just do not go in without providing the infrastructure of towns, shopping centres, schools, ports, railway lines and that type of thing. It is putting up a total smoke screen to say that the emergency declarations must be opposed. What about Noonkanbah in the Kimberleys in 1980? That is a bit closer to home. What about the apalling acts of the Court Liberal-National Party Government in Western Australia when that Government forced an invasion on the Uniting Church mission at Noonkanbah? I have been there and I have seen the damage that the mining company did to the sacred site. It drilled right into the sacred site. It destroyed the only road into the settlement getting the drilling rigs in and then it had to get the drilling rigs out because there was nothing there. It was an appalling situation. The whole world looked at Australia and said: 'Is that the way you treat your Aborigines and care about their reserves and sacred sites ?' The honourable member for Gwydir went on about uproar. Why will there be uproar in the community? Who cares whether there is a short delay in the development of a mineral deposit in this country? The Roxby Downs project might or might not go ahead. We still do not know whether a kilo of the various minerals that are there will ever be dug out of the ground and sold. Whatever is there is low grade anyway. I think the speakers on the other side take a very poor view of the Australian people and the country people particularly. My own relations in the country, whatever their unfortunate political views might be, no matter what error they might make when they go to the ballot box, have great sympathy for the Aboriginal people. I know that some of them supported the honourable member for Calare and no doubt that helped him to get elected to this place. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who is a new member of this place, made a great contribution in which he pointed out the scandal that had taken place in the Kimberleys in respect of the CRA-Ashton joint venture. When I was in this area two years ago with one of the Labor Party committees we met lepers at the Turkey Creek mission. We saw that CRA had ignored its responsibility to the local community. The people of that area only wanted money for land rights but CRA denied it to them. It would do members of the Opposition a great deal of good and advance their interest and knowledge of Aboriginal affairs if they visited some of these sites. I congratulate the honourable member for Hughes on his contribution. I took great interest in his comment about beads and mirrors because that is all the people of Turkey Creek are getting as a result of one of the scandals that occurred under the previous Government. This Bill has been dealt with in great detail by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). The hour is late and I do not want to delay the House. So, without further ado, I commend the Bill to the House. I feel that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is to be congratulated for bringing forward important interim legislation which deals only with preserving in emergencies, particularly for a short time and to prevent hasty actions where sites are threatened. The procedures for declarations would then follow. The actual declarations would then be laid on the table of the Parliament and could be set aside. This is the only Parliament in Australia in which declarations can be overturned. In all the States except Queensland a decision by a State Minister is not reversible by Parliament. The legislation will also work hand in hand with the State legislation. The Commonwealth could have overthrown the State legislation not only under the dams case but also under sections of the Constitution that deal with this area. It chose instead to work with the States. I commend the legislation to the House. I invite members of the Opposition to read the legislation. If they find that somewhat trying, they might read the Minister's second reading speech. This is fair legislation. It is not a threat to our country people. The people who live in the bush will appreciate that the legislation is reasonable. I know that fair play and common sense will prevail. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(12.08 a.m.) —I rise to participate in this debate as, I would consider, a friend of Aboriginals. I have been interested in the comments by Opposition speakers in this debate. It is interesting to note that Government supporters who have spoken in this debate include the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is the member for Melbourne Ports, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), all of whom represent inner-city areas in the two great metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne. One could easily ask: Where are the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), the honourable for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil)- Mr O'Neil —Here I am. Mr DRUMMOND —Well done. But I note that the honourable member is not down to speak on this Bill. One wonders why honourable members on the Government side of the House who know something about Aboriginals and who have lived and worked with Aboriginals will not be speaking on this Bill. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and other honourable members on this side of the House have worked and lived with Aboriginals and are prepared to stand up as true friends of the Aborigines and criticise this Bill. This Bill symbolises to thousands of Australians, particularly Western Australians, the unacceptable face of the Hawke Government. It has only incidental significance to the protection of genuine sacred sites. It has everything to do with the backdoor imposition of so-called land rights and with the open-ended extension of centralised executive power. It has far more to do with the satisfaction of unreal, un-Australian dogma than with the true needs of Aboriginals or non-Aboriginal Australians. The most fair minded people would concede that within various parts of this country there are some sites that have the same significance for tribal Aboriginals as churches in our society have for Christians. This Bill does not, however, talk of sacred sites. Rather, it lays stress on what are called ' significant Aboriginal areas'-which is a delightfully vague term. It is a term that clearly could be taken to embrace very wide areas, and the areas need only to be 'significant', not even sacred. It should be pointed out that whilst it has long been understood that a fairly limited number of sacred sites exist in regions occupied by tribal Aboriginals, concepts such as 'areas of influence' coming from sacred sites are a more recent development, whose place in Aboriginal tradition is open to question. Areas of significance may be meaningless but they have their use. They are a simple device for giving 2 per cent of Australians effective control over massive land areas, even if as yet they do not gain title. Land covered by exploration licences, pastoral leases, public use, or simple freehold can be frozen by a ministerial decision. This Bill, above all, gives the Federal Government enormous power to override State governments and interfere with any project where Aboriginal areas may be fabricated or found. It is said that the Bill is designed not to override existing State law in this field but to complement it. However, it is up to the subjective decisions of the Federal Minister to decide whether the State legislation is adequate. My own State has long-established laws protecting true sacred sites, but the tenor of this Bill encompasses a much broader definition of Aboriginal areas. It will be very easy for the Minister to say that the existing law is inadequate, and then to alienate much larger land areas by executive action. There is, of course, no such legislation operating in Queensland and Tasmania. As a federalist, I believe that this is a matter for the parliaments of those States. It is really worth asking why any such legislation is needed in Tasmania , where there are no Aboriginal people living in a tribal state whose lives can be said to be influenced by sacred sites. Indeed, it is arguable whether there are any true Aboriginals in Tasmania at all. The people who now claim Aboriginality in that State have been living in a European society for a hundred years. It is a measure of the dogmatism and malice of this Government that it seeks to coerce Tasmania over an artificial concern. Nothing better illustrates the arrogance of the Hawke Government towards sovereign State parliaments than clause 13 of the Bill, which deals with the making of declarations. Sub-clause (2) makes a bland referral to consultation with State Ministers to determine the effectiveness of State law before a declaration is made; yet sub-clause (4) goes on to state that any failure to comply with this requirement does not invalidate the making of a declaration. A child can see that this makes a farce of consultation. The Federal Minister will be able to do precisely what he wants without regard to the interests of the great majority of the people of any State. Consultation means no more than a mugger saying 'Please' before he knocks a person down and robs him. Moreover, clause 8 (2) shows this Government's obsession with subordinating Australia to international treaties as a device for subverting State governments . There would be no need to make reference to so-called 'obligations under international law' if it were not for the intention of the Hawke Government to resort to the external affairs power should the validation of the Bill be challenged. I can only stress that this Government makes a mockery of its vaunted nationalism when it invokes alien authorities to deprive Australians of their rights. This Bill is riddled with vague and simplistic definitions that result from deliberate intention rather than sloppy drafting. The effect is to give enormous power to a Minister to transform the non-metropolitan areas of Australia. Firstly, there is the deliberate vagueness as to how the Minister must satisfy himself that an area in question has true significance for Aboriginal Australians. Does he accept the word of the applicant or does he seek some impartial method of verification? It is my understanding that truly sacred sites depend upon secrecy, as with genuine living Aboriginal traditions. The Bill conveniently ignores this paradox, just as it makes no distinction between areas of religious importance and those merely having some traditional significance. Within Western Australia the museum, the custodian of Aboriginal sites, has catalogued some 750,000 items. Quite clearly, however, many of these hardly have a deep religious significance. They can include a tree where the father of an Aboriginal Australian rested or even buried his dog. If such areas are to be equated with truly sacred sites and given equal legislative protection the inevitable result will be a community backlash that eventually will make it impossible to protect any site. Giving the Minister carte blanche to make decisions as to what deserves protection is to threaten the rule of law and the authority of our courts. Similarly, in clause 3 (1) there is a very broad definition of 'Aboriginal tradition', which includes the observances of any Aboriginal group. This ignores the consideration that these customs are not static but dynamic and because of such happenings as death new areas are invested with significance over time. Such places and objects are not sacred sites as most people would understand them and to recognise them legally will simply exclude non-Aboriginal Australians from more areas of their own country. If the Government was sincere in trying to protect sacred sites rather than extend Aboriginal control over larger areas, it would limit this definition of 'tradition' by specifying that these observances must be handed down from generation to generation, as a perfectly reasonable proposal of the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia has suggested. Why then has the Minister ignored it? Clause 3 (2) gives us a definition of 'desecration' as being the treatment of an area 'in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition'. Thus the 98 per cent on non-Aboriginal Australians may become lawbreakers if they walk past an Aboriginal area and somehow insult the Aboriginals concerned with that area. The Minister's amendment may address that position. Needless to say, farming, mining or tourism would be excluded, and to avoid the 'desecration' of the 750,000 listed sites in Western Australia, which represents one for every three square kilometres, most of us Western Australians would have to shift somewhere else. It is no use the Minister or anyone else saying that these provisions are academic and will not be invoked in full. The fact is that they will be there on the statute book, a constant threat to our economic progress and our freedom. Clause 3 (3), by referring to the mere likelihood of desecration as threating an area, can mean that an actual application for a pastoral lease or exploration licence could breach the Act. Exploration licences in Western Australia cover areas of 200 square kilometres and it is quite likely that such areas might include a few square metres of an Aboriginal site. Thus the time honoured State government prerogative of granting mining tenements is jeopardised through the obvious extension of this legislation. The Bill would be less unjust and harmful if it were specified that only traditional Aboriginal owners could apply for a ministerial declaration in respect of a land area. Clause 9 of the Bill, however, merely refers to any ' group of Aboriginals' who may be detribalised urban radicals with no genuine feeling for the site or its traditional observances. Surely the consent of all traditional owners should be mandatory before any declaration is made. The absence of any such provision shows that the Government is cynically determined that this Bill shall be the vehicle by which radical activists will impose their will on other Australians. Equally it shows a scant concern for the preservation of real sites and traditions of tribal Aboriginals. Clause 17 continues this all-embracing trend by not specifying just whom the Minister may designate as the authorised officer who may make emergency declarations. It is bad enough to realise that there will be a new group of zealots interfering in the life of this country. It is more serious to consider that the sort of person likely to be appointed by this Government is the type of radical activist who has energetically poisoned community relations in the north of the State I represent, the type of person referred to by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie when he spoke of second-rate lawyers doing nicely out of land rights. Now the Minister is providing these people with a further avenue of employment. While policemen have to produce their authorisations at all times, these people need show their identification cards only if it is reasonably practical to do so. They will indeed be a privileged group, in keeping with their power to halt mining for two days, with the consequent financial loss that a mining company may incur. When one considers the penalties set down in clause 22, it is not using too strong a word to accuse the Minister of fanaticism. For an individual contravening the new Holy Writ of a ministerial declaration, the maximum penalty is five years gaol or a fine of $10,000. In contrast, the penalty in my State for desecrating a Christian church is $500 or six months gaol. Desecrating a grave brings a fine of $40 or three months gaol. I understand from the honourable member for Hughes these penalties may vary from State to State. This proposed Act is stupid and arrogant and will do nothing for Aboriginal Australians except arouse ill feeling towards them. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie warned his colleagues that the same thing would happen in similar circumstances over Ayers Rock. Equally draconian are the fines of $50,000 to be levied on any offending corporation. Such a corporation can be made liable by an unauthorised act by one of its employees. To cap it off, ignorance of a declaration will be no defence-I understand that the amendment the Minister proposes to move may redress that to a degree-and a person can be convicted, having caused no physical damage, and a prosecution can be launched even after a person has been acquitted under relevant State legislation. In essence, this divisive, extremist Bill gives precedence to Aboriginal tribal law over normal civil law, and it gives precedence to the religious and semi-religious beliefs of Aboriginals over those of their fellow Australians. I often think that this socialist Minister does not view Aboriginals as fellow Australians who need to be brought into the ambit of our society, but as another race to be alienated from us by a false sense of historic grievance and by a racial guilt complex. Aboriginal Australians need help to take their rightful places in our national life, not to be set up with unsought privilege as a separate, stagnating community imprisoned in its past. Many of us are getting sick of the socialist style paternalism of the 1980s that implicitly treats Aboriginals as a group in communities rather than as individuals. The other 98 per cent of Australians have long assumed the right to be treated by their elected governments as individuals or as families. Somehow Aboriginals are less fortunate. This oversight will retard their development in the society in which, for better or worse, they must live. The result of this collectivist thinking by the Australian Labor Party has resulted in the sort of legislation that is now before the House. It seeks to place land under general Aboriginal control but does nothing for the real problems of these fellow Australians in regard to health, education, social development and their wish to develop as individuals. We can also question any policy of assisting a disadvantaged section of the Australian community at the expense of the rights and freedoms of other Australians. Sadly, it will be the ordinary Aboriginal people, not the politicians and activists who caused the trouble, who will reap the inevitable backlash from the angry Australians deprived of income and free movement under this Bill. This Bill does not seek merely to give Aboriginal Australians dominance over vacant tracts of desert. It threatens private rights and property by allowing property owners to be deprived of access to their own land without entitlement to compensation. Here it must be stressed that compensation under the Bill relates only to the acquisition of property, while nothing is said about the deprivation of land use. Farmers and miners are threatened not only by compulsory seizure of land but also by prohibition of access and development. This is an appalling trend in legislation-de facto expropriation without compensation. Why bother with old fashioned nationalisation when a few significant Aboriginal areas can be conveniently sought and brought to light? In any case it would be very hard to give adequate compensation to a mining company which may be hit by a ministerial declaration before an exploration program has progressed to a stage at which a decision could be made as to whether a project was viable. It would therefore be very hard to agree to just terms of compensation; the financial loss to an exploration company would be inescapable. The Minister thinks that the mining industry is so rich and powerful that it can somehow survive this drastic effect on its operations. He has not ventured out in the real world. The low levels of returns and the declining international competitiveness are all too real in the mining industry. Over the last six years the rate of return from mining has been only 8.9 per cent compared with 10.1 per cent in our cosseted manufacturing sector and 14.2 per cent in the finance sector. The Minister can protest until he is black in the face that we are painting the worst case scenario and that he intends to proceed with moderation. If this were his intention he would have no need for the sweeping powers and the broad definitions in this Bill. If it proceeds to law some 98 per cent of Australians will be well down the road to becoming strangers in their own country. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.28 a.m.) —I wish to make a contribution to this debate because over a number of years I have taken an interest in matters of concern to Aboriginal people, and have participated in the writing of a number of reports. Whatever views I have are largely on the public record, and for that reason I think it is appropriate that, having a long standing interest, I should express a few views on this subject. It is appropriate that I should say first of all, as did the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), in speaking on behalf of the Opposition, that we recognise the importance of sites of particular significance to Aboriginals. We recognise that there are occasions when those sites can be under threat and that on occasions steps need to be taken to protect sites. In broad recognition of that principle, legislation has been put in place in States which have had Liberal governments and, in some cases, that legislation has been in place for some time. We have also seen over time an acknowledgment by members on this side of the House of the need to protect important objects. On occasions there has been genuine concern that objects may be the subject of sale or export and that some steps ought to be taken to protect them. My former colleague the Hon. Bill Wentworth actively expressed some views on this subject. I was certainly very much aware of his desire to see some legislation in this area. I talked to some of the people, who are in this chamber tonight as guests, about the sort of legislation that Mr Wentworth proposed at one time and was told about the difficulties that might be occasioned by preparing and putting into place the legislation that he had drafted. Many of the people who have a great deal of experience and skill in this area highlighted the difficulties in moving in the area. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) says that this is interim legislation. The only thing that makes it interim is the use of the word ' interim' in the title and the fact that it contains a sunset clause which will bring it to and end after two years operation. It will be on the statute book for two years and will still have a significant impact. The Minister says it is intended to be interim legislation because to his mind the legislation in its present form is unsatisfactory, needs to be improved and needs further consideration. Mr Holding —It does not go far enough. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister may want to live with that statement; he may not. The point is that this legislation is seen to be interim, which implies that the legislation, for whatever reason is unsatisfactory. To an extent, that indicates the haste with which the legislation has been drafted. Obviously at this stage, while it is interim and is not the end result, it cannot in my view be in any way adequate. For that reason I looked to the Minister's second reading speech to try to glean some reason why the Minister was giving this matter priority over other matters that I will mention in a short while and why this matter is being pushed in an interim way at this time, particularly when it has occasioned a great deal of misunderstanding. Mr Holding —Misrepresentation. Mr RUDDOCK —Some aspects of it may have been misrepresented by individuals. It certainly will not be misrepresented by me. It has occasioned a good deal of concern, and that must worry anybody who has an interest in Aboriginal affairs. The Minister and I have disagreed in the past, when I was on the other side and he was on this side, about circumstances which highlight tensions within the community and which ultimately make it very much more difficult, not for me or for the Minister, but for the people who are most deprived and for whom we all have a genuine concern. When there are tensions, pressures and concerns, Aboriginal people suffer. As a result of the way in which this matter has been handled there is a great deal of concern and, I suspect, a good deal of misunderstanding in the community. As a result, the Aboriginal people will find it very much more difficult over time. There is a method of dealing with these matters and I argue that the Minister should have adopted it. I am not a farmer and I suppose that for me to suggest that the Minister should have tilled the soil perhaps sounds somewhat trite. In this area it would have been more appropriate for there to have been a draft Bill at least. It would have been appropriate for the Minister to look at the solution that the former Labor Government adopted in its effort to till the soil in an area which it saw as difficult, the area of land rights, particularly in the Northern Territory, when it commissioned an inquiry by Mr Justice Woodward. That enabled the views of people in the community, both those for and against, to be canvassed and I think that made it very much easier for legislation ultimately to be passed. Sure it took a little longer, but I think the end result was far more satisfactory because it did lead to a situation in which, although there were differences of opinion over the ultimate nature of the legislation that was passed, legislation was passed to give effect to land rights in the Northern Territory. The Minister could have asked the parliamentary Committee to look at the matter and to canvass opinions. In fact, I think from the time that the Minister himself was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs there was a desire on his part to have the Committee look at things other than those which I would have had the Committee look at. I am sure one of the matters he would have proposed-if I go back through the records I will probably find he did propose it-is an examination of this question of how we might better protect sacred sites. It could well have been an area in which there was a positive role for the parliamentary Committee, to prepare public opinion and to try to develop a real understanding of what these issues are about. There are allegations that there is misrepresentation; misrepresentation perhaps by my colleagues-- Mr Holding —Misunderstanding; I prefer that term. Mr RUDDOCK —A misunderstanding by some of my colleagues. I think people could be forgiven for having a misunderstanding of some of these questions when we relate them to some of the other comments that have been made in debate. I have in mind particularly the comments tonight of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). I will have a look at his speech tomorrow to see that I am not misrepresenting him in what I am about to say but I listened very carefully to his speech and it contained some key words. He referred, I think in the context of a great deal of concern within the mining industry about what the impact of this legislation might be, to particular mining developments that have occurred in this country. He mentioned the substantial Nabalco Pty Ltd development in the Northern Territory and the Ashton Mining Ltd mine in Western Australia, a very rich diamond deposit at Lake Argyle. I think he was suggesting to us that if this legislation had been in place there might well have been a very different result in relation to the way in which those developments proceeded. Perhaps that is understating the proposition somewhat. I will not be surprised if people pick it up later and argue that the honourable member, by raising those matters in this context, was signalling that they were the sorts of developments that would not have been able to proceed if legislation like this was in place. Mr Holding —He didn't say that. Mr RUDDOCK —Signalling. Mr Holding —No, he didn't say that. Mr RUDDOCK —He did not say that? Mr Holding —They might have developed differently. That is not saying they would not have developed. Mr RUDDOCK —No, it certainly is not. The point I am making is that when one is dealing with a matter as sensitive and as difficult as this, and the Minister has told me that it has occasioned some difficulty for him, the fact of the matter is that statements of this sort do suggest to those people who are concerned that they might very well be under threat. It gives them greater credence to go out and argue that cause. Of course I think the Minister is in the position, unfortunately for him, whereby in relation to this legislation that he sees as having great priority, not even all of his colleagues fully appreciate the matter in the same way that he does. I can rely only on newspaper reports. No doubt those I am referring to can correct me if I am wrong in suggesting that these comments have some validity. In the Sydney Morning Herald of Friday, 30 March, Amanda Buckley wrote about this matter. She stated: Some members complained- She was speaking about one of the papers that was being prepared in relation to Aboriginal questions- that the paper would falsely raise Aboriginal expectations about the government' s intentions on land rights. Then we had comments such as this: Government backbenchers said yesterday that one of the main concerns about Mr Holding's proposals, especially among Western Australians, was that plans to give Aborigines control over mining on their land would adversely affect business interests and could lead to unemployment and dissatisfaction with Labor policies. If these are views that are being expressed by the Minister's colleagues, is it any wonder that we see in the wider community comments which the Minister sees as evidencing a considerable misunderstanding about this legislation? A report in the Bulletin of 8 May indicated that one of the Minister's colleagues, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), had some concern about this matter. I do not know how accurate it is but I am told there has been tabled-if not tabled at least seen-a letter from the honourable member to his colleagues in which he had this to say: There are many thinking Aboriginals who already sense the backlash and, as a politician representing a large number of Aboriginals, I know the backlash is there and I am concerned to see that it does not become an irresistible groundswell. The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), had some comments to make at a mining industry meeting. He stated: Aboriginal sacred sites are a related issue. It is essential that resource companies consult with Aboriginals to ensure that sacred sites are respected. I agree with that. There is also an area where legislation is being introduced, or has been introduced, at both Commonwealth and State levels. The Minister went on to say: There is a need to promote goodwill and respect on the part of both the resource companies and the Aborigines concerned, by the adoption of effective consultation procedures. Why do I refer to these matters? Because I think they evidence not only amongst members on this side of the House but also amongst some members of the Government a concern that this legislation might well lead to a situation in which the rest of the community, of whom we have to have an understanding in these sensitive issues and whom we need to carry along with us, might well feel alienated, frustrated and concerned-as a result of misunderstanding perhaps, but certainly as a result of the very fact that there are these legislative proposals. I think that there is good reason for the Government to reconsider its approach, to take the matter back to look at how it can try to retrieve this situation to try to get some of this pressure that is developing within the community off the backs of Aboriginal people. The Government should highlight the sorts of issues that we were dealing with in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, such as the important questions of Aboriginal health, Aboriginal education, the way in which we can get resources into those areas, and Aboriginal housing. This is an area I hope the Committee will spend a great deal of its time working on after completing its report on Aboriginal education. I think there are positive results to be achieved in these areas, runs that can be got on the board. If the Minister is able to see that there is merit in withdrawing this matter and taking it a little more slowly, developing the final product-perhaps a product that is far less alarmist than that which we have before us-I think he could do Aboriginal people a real service. Aboriginal people will be better served by a reduction in the conflict rather than a heightening of the pressures that can result. This legislation also is of some concern in that in some ways the position of the States might not be properly protected. The Minister added to that tonight by indicating that he might delegate some of his powers to State officials and that that might lead to a more co-operative approach from some States. In my experience, when we seek to impose our view over and above the views of a State on these sorts of issues it can lead to further pressures and difficulties. We saw this particularly in relation to Queensland. I reiterate some of the views I have put on the public record. I believe it is appropriate that in this area where the States have a role as well as the Commonwealth the role of the Commonwealth should be exercised in a co-operative way. The Commonwealth's view should not be substituted for the view of the States. I offer those views to the Minister in a constructive spirit and as one whose record shows an interest in the subject over time. Perhaps this will lead to a reconsideration of these questions without some of the rancour we have seen in the debate to date. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.46 a.m.) —I enter this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill as I have an interest in the legislation and an interest in the people it is to serve. More importantly, I think some comment should be made at this time in the interest of all Australians. If one considers the haste with which this legislation has been introduced and the lack of consultation on it, one has to question whether this has been the proper approach to a very delicate subject. Already speakers for the Government have accused the Opposition of racist attitudes for bringing to the attention of this Parliament and the people of Australia some of the real fears that we have. This Bill could be more divisive than collective in the sense of bringing together the aspirations of some of the people. Mr Gayler —Tell us about your fears. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I will reply to the interjection. The honourable member for Leichhardt has been interjecting all night. He has not been prepared to talk on the Bill. He becomes an apologist for everything else the Labor Party does. I am sick and tired of standing here and being subjected to his barrages when he has not got the guts to stand up and speak on the Bill himself. While the contribution from the Opposition is being made by people from various parts of Australia, the contribution made by the Government to date has come, as the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) said earlier, solely from members from the metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne. One wonders why this is the case. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), the honourable member for Leichhardt and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) could make a contribution and tell us what is on their minds instead of sitting and making no contribution except by way of inane interjection. Perhaps this is symbolic of the attitude of the Government towards this Bill. It can get people from Melbourne and Sydney to speak on it. They can protect themselves by saying they are the conscience of the Government. They can say what should or should not be done with the known protection that it would be absurd of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to declare the Melbourne Cricket Ground or the Sydney Opera House sacred sites. Mr Millar —Don't bet on it. Mr BRAITHWAITE —No, we should not bet on it. But that is the situation. The people who are affected, the people in the country-the pastoralists, the miners and the like-are the ones who should speak on the legislation. That is what we are trying to do. I am reminded of the comments made by a Minister in the Western Australian Government-a government that has certain similar persuasive political views to those of the Federal Labor Government. He said that, as far as he was concerned, the legislation was unnecessary. Western Australia could do the work that it wanted to do and impose the controls that it wanted to impose in its own way. I know that somebody will immediately say: 'That is the Western Australian Government. What about Queensland?' Queensland has already operated in its own right to protect sacred sites. Mr Gayler —Oh, yes! Mr BRAITHWAITE —I ask the honourable member who has just interjected to recall that the Jackson pipeline opened today. I understand that a major deviation was made at an additional cost to take that pipeline around a sacred site. That was not done under any pressure from the Commonwealth; that was done by the State Government in its own right. This Bill- Mr Maher —That is commendable. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member for Lowe who has just interjected is very loud on rhetoric. He knows for sure that his house will not be declared a sacred site. He knows that, similarly, the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House will not be chosen. That is the safety in which he speaks. He has thrown up a guilt complex against the Liberal Party and National Party of Australia. It is inane and rather puerile for him to interject in that way. Why is there concern by the people we are supposed to represent; mining people, pastoralists, business people and country people? Why is there this concern? Mr Gayler —Tell us. No one else has. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Right. I will. I have been asked by the honourable member to tell him why there is this concern. Let me start with the report about the Minister himself as reported in the Australian on 10 April 1984. The article states: Mr Holding told a Brisbane Rotary Club meeting the Federal Government would deploy the power and authority of the national Parliament to improve the lot of the Aboriginals. We will not be deterred by spurious arguments about States' rights. Initially concern was expressed about State rights. Let us look at a comment made by the Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Charles Perkins. In an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio morning program this year he said, more or less in these words: 'We will be insisting on the return of all sacred sites.' He said that if they were irretrievable-again I return to the examples I gave of the Melbourne Cricket Ground and the Sydney Opera House- they would want compensation. Is this not an inference that the sacred sites themselves are for sale? Just how sacred are the sites to the people concerned if compensation will be an alternative? Are they the reason for the concern in society? There is also the more recent situation. People from the Government have been telling us not to confuse this issue about land rights. We are talking tonight about land rights in this Bill. It is the experience-- Mr Holding —No, you are not. Mr BRAITHWAITE —If the Minister reads his own Bill he will see that it concerns land rights. That is what it will lead to. The Chief Minister in the Northern Territory has already indicated that over 50 per cent of the territory is under threat. Mr Holding —That is your legislation. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I know that is my legislation; that is why I am saying there is a concern by the people. I have been asked to demonstrate why that concern should be and I think I should be given the liberty of doing that. Recently a film crew was not allowed to film Ayers Rock. All these things are reasons for concern within the community. I think it is only fair for us to warn the Government that while it might be trying to reduce passions, inadvertently it might be inflaming them. That could be a divisive characteristic. The Minister's haste in introducing the legislation is certainly evidenced by the fact that he has come into the chamber tonight with a whole host of amendments which should not have been necessary if due consideration and consultation had taken place well before now. The Australian Mining Industry Council has been criticised by some Government speakers, but it must have put some relevant points because some of them are now incorporated within the framework of amendments. I have been asked to explain why there is concern about this legislation. I believe the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders want some guarantees as to how the legislation is to be interpreted. Again, we have come up against that inglorious situation of allowing the Minister discretion in the application of the Act and granting authority to certain officials to implement or make declarations. Giving any type of discretion is dangerous because that discretion is not necessarily held in the hands of a named person; it is vested in an office. Who is to say how the holder of that office will act and how the Act will be interpreted, particularly as the discretion afforded to the Minister is not- Mr Holding —That is 10 minutes and you have another colleague who wishes to speak. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, I know that. If the Minister would keep quiet I would be able to keep going. We are concerned about the discretionary matter and also the aspect which is contained in many of the clauses and amendments that one is guilty until one has proved one's innocence. We are voicing the concerns of the people who will have to meet face to face the application of the proposed Act. I believe it is felt by lots of people themselves that in many respects the Bill should have gone further to prevent misunderstandings, but advantage has not been taken of this opportunity to do that. Other speakers have spoken on other aspects of the legislation. As the Minister reminded me, I am limited by time constraints. I believe this is the best opportunity we have had of discussing a problem for which so many people in the cities have no answers except to pass the buck back to the country people and northern Australians. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.58 a.m.) —I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) for giving me the opportunity to make some remarks at the second reading stage of the passage of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill because that gives me the opportunity to be a little broader in my remarks. It was interesting tonight to hear the Minister foreshadow some amendments. One of those amendments seeks to avoid the very valid criticism that has come from all sectors of the community that very innocent people doing the normal things that Australians do today, such as travelling in 4-wheel drive vehicles and so on, could find themselves subject to the draconian fines. I thought I heard the Minister say that the Government will assist people as much in this regard by fencing off all these sites and putting signs on them. I wonder whether he really meant that. Mr Gayler —You could not read them. Mr TUCKEY —Any time the honourable member for Leichhardt wants to debate this issue in a few pubs in his electorate, I will go there and debate it with him. He runs round his electorate saying one thing and votes in the opposite way here . Mr Gayler —What are you going to hit them with-a sand bag? Mr TUCKEY —Ken Colbung is sitting behind the honourable member. He knows Jane Winda. When the honourable member has a moment he should ask Mr Colbung about the circumstances. He will tell him the truth. I wonder whether the Minister will fence in all those sacred sites so that the rest of the Australian people will know where they are and they can go and desecrate them in the way that Australians do to many tourist spots. He has a very interesting situation to answer for in that regard. I am standing here because of my objections to this Bill. I am not objecting to what the Minister set out to do, which was to protect certain things that certain people hold valuable. I am objecting to the way that he has tried to do it and, more particularly, the power which he has given to himself, as has been said by speaker after speaker. The Minister has legal training. I see that he is shaking his head. I can only read what is before me. I have seen him tell Australians on television: 'You do not have to worry about what you find in the Bill'. He told Max Walsh the other day, with smiles all over his face, that he had put all the details in the second reading speech. He said: 'You do not have to worry about that; you can trust me'. Let us look at the opportunity for trust. Let me read to the House from the report of the board of inquiry relating to certain matters within the Richmond City Council. On page 582 of the report it is stated: Some years later a curious incident occurred in relation to the 1969 agreement. In 1977, the Minister for Local Government made a written request to the Town Clerk to explain-- Mr Barry Jones —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This does not have the faintest semblance of relevance to the matter before the House. I request that the honourable member be directed to stick to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I uphold the point of order and ask the honourable member to restrict his remarks to the matters contained in the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —This Bill is about ministerial power and we are entitled to draw attention-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have just advised the honourable member for O'Connor to restrict his remarks to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, let me tell you a bit about this Bill. This Bill gives power to a Minister who has told a royal commission-- Mr Holding —It was an inquiry. Mr TUCKEY —Okay, it was an inquiry, and the Minister was under oath. I will tell honourable members what the Minister told the inquiry. He told it that he could lie to a Minister of an opposite government because he was a political enemy. With the powers that the Minister has, he has refused me the right to read the document so I will send it to the Minister to read if he likes. If he had given me the chance to read it I could have proved the point. I have to do it in this fashion because the Minister would not let me read it. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. What the honourable member for O'Connor is saying has no relevance to the Bill we are discussing here tonight and besides he is the one who has the conviction, not anybody else in this place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I have already advised the honourable member for O'Connor to restrict his remarks to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I will continue to debate the Bill and I will give honourable members examples of why I am talking in this way. I am quite happy to admit to this House that I have been fined $40 for assault. Mr Hand —What did you do? Mr TUCKEY —It was for attacking a person who happened to be black, and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Gorman) who sits alongside the honourable member for Melbourne was fined $150 for bashing his wife. Can the honourable member deny that? Mr Tickner —Ha, ha! Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member for Hughes thinks it is funny to bash one's wife. He is laughing his head off. He does not mind bashing wives. I have told him what to do. He should turn around to the man sitting behind him and ask him the circumstances. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will return to the Bill. You do not seem too concerned that the interjection was irrelevant. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that this Bill is about ministerial power; it is absolute ministerial power. There is a slight reference to declarations reviewable by the Parliament and, to quote the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the truth is in the numbers in this place. That means that a Minister is part of the Government and therefore he has the numbers. So that is no protection for the Australian people who may, in some innocent way, transgress. What I am putting is that the assumption then has to be taken that the Minister is a man of justice. However, I have just drawn to the attention of honourable members the fact that the Minister, by his own admission, is prepared to treat political enemies differently. In fact he is prepared to write misleading letters telling a Minister of the Crown what is not the truth. Of course on another occasion in this place I have drawn the Parliament's attention to answers given to a question on notice by the Minister in which he denied having done something when months before he had written a letter to a fellow Minister stating that he had done just that thing. That matter is on the record and if anybody doubts it I will give him the information. That is the point we are dealing with. We are giving power to a Minister who is prepared to treat political enemies differently, and that is what is in this piece of paper that-- Mr Chynoweth —Get back to the subject. Mr TUCKEY —That is the subject all right. It is all right if you are not a political enemy but if you are a political enemy you can get fixed right up by this piece of legislation. Mr Steedman —Who are you going to fix up this time, you big mug? Mr TUCKEY —Oh-- Mr Steedman —Come over here and have a go, you big mug; have a go. Mr TUCKEY —You are all wind. I have seen your type a thousand times. Mr Steedman —Come over and have a go, you big mug. You bloody fascist. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Casey will remain silent. Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have asked the honourable member for Casey to remain silent . Mr Rocher —I will go further on my point of order, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, and ask that he withdraw the words that he used to describe the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am not aware of the words the honourable member used. Mr TUCKEY —If I can enlighten you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member said that I was a big mug and I should come outside. Mr Fife —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is your responsibility to uphold the dignity of this Parliament, and I call on you to ask the honourable member to withdraw and to apologise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for O'Connor whether he was offended by the remarks. Mr TUCKEY —I was certainly offended. I do not believe that I should be attacked in that fashion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for Casey to withdraw his remarks. Mr Steedman —Certainly. I am not quite sure what I said. Could I please have the remarks repeated so I will know what I have to withdraw? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw the offensive remarks . Mr Steedman —Certainly. I am not quite sure what I said that was offensive, but I withdraw unreservedly for the honourable member for O'Connor, who bashes people. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for another withdrawal from and a warning to the honourable member. He just referred to me as the person who bashes people, and he does not know that. Mrs Kelly —You said that you bashed people. Mr TUCKEY —I am offended by the remark, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The remark has been withdrawn. I call on the honourable member for O'Connor to continue. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will return to the Bill. It is necessary that I say this. The letter continued: His letter was drafted by Mr Clyde Holding at the Council's request, and according to the evidence of Mr Holding, it was drafted upon the basis that as the enquiry came from a political enemy, namely the Minister, he accordingly took the view that a political answer was required. That was the view of this Minister. He has a different rule for his political enemies. If one is a political enemy, what sort of treatment would one get under this Minister, who would have total power under this Bill? That is what I am drawing to honourable members' attention. Let us get down to saying why this Bill is like it is. The Bill states in clause 9 (1), headed 'Emergency declarations in relation to areas': Where the Minister- (a) receives an applicant made orally or in writing by or on behalf of an Aboriginal or a group of Aboriginals seeking the preservation or protection- The Bill says 'by or on behalf of'. It does not say 'by traditional Aboriginals' or anything like that. Clause 10 goes a little further and says what the Minister may do. Clause 9 (2) states: Subject to this part, a declaration under sub-section (1) has effect for such period, not exceeding 30 days, . . . If a company has $300m tied up in a mining project, that provision will cost it $30m in interest. Clause 9 (3) provides that the Minister may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so, declare that a declaration goes on for another 30 days. Clause 10 (1) (c) states that the Minister may take action if he 'has received a report under sub-section (4) in relation to the area from a person nominated by him'. Let us go to clause 17 and see what 'a person nominated by him' means: (1) The Minister may, by instrument in writing, designate persons to be authorized officers for the purposes of this Division. (2) The Minister shall cause to be issued to each authorized officer an identity card in the form prescribed, containing a photograph . . . It appears to me that under clause 17 as long as bloke gets a plastic card with his photo on it he is an authorised officer. There is no requirement that he do anything else. He does not have to have any qualifications; as long as he has his little plastic card he is all right. He reports back to the Minister. Therefore, what do we have? We have an all-powerful Minister. I have told honourable members this Minister's philosophy in his own words. They are not my words; they are what the Minister said to the Board of Inquiry relating to certain matters within the city of Richmond. If he wants to deny that they are the facts, we can sit down together and read page 582, because that is what was said at that time, Mr Chairman, Madam Chairman, Mr Chairman. Government members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —Honourable members opposite think that is really funny. I have seen them make mistakes hundreds of times. They are like a mob of monkeys. Mr Steedman —Sit down, you mug. Mr TUCKEY —I will take the ten minutes I was allotted. I am just using up the time members opposite wasted. If they want to waste more time, I will waste that too. This Bill gives total power to a Minister. It gives no rights to Australians. In the hands of the present Minister it is a very dangerous instrument. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(1.10 a.m.) —in reply-I have a certain sadness in respect of this debate, that is, the purpose and intention of the Government in respect of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill have been totally ignored by members of the Opposition, with the possible exception of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). What is this legislation about? What does it seek to do? This legislation is about the Commonwealth Parliament on behalf of the people of Australia recognising the hopes and aspirations of the Aboriginal people of Australia who have asked me, as Minister, to use the legislative powers of the Commonwealth to protect their heritage. The honourable gentlemen opposite tell us that they are concerned about these aspirations and that they really would like to do something about the situation, if only the time were right. After all , this is the first piece of legislation directed to all the Aboriginal people of Australia which is trying to say a number of things. The first thing that the legislation is saying is that the power of this Parliament and the Constitution will protect the Aboriginal people's heritage and rights and this Parliament will honour its constitutional responsibilities to Aboriginal people. That is not easy. There are many com-plexities in it. I would be the first to acknowledge that. Of course it is true to say that when one contemplates legislation of this kind it can affect other people's rights. It is proper and appropriate that we should consider the representations of those other organisations that feel thus affected. It was in that spirit that we were prepared to try to reach consensus with organisations such as the Australian Mining Industry Council and the National Farmers Federation. Consensus does not mean submission to the views of those organisations. When we introduce legislation which affects the rural economy and which might confer benefits on farmers there is no way that such legislation would not affect the rights of consumers and trade unionists. Will the National Farmers Federation say: 'Well, it is perfectly appropriate and we will concede a veto right to the trade union movement and to consumer organisations to tell us what is in the interests of farmers?' Of course, the Federation would not be in it for two minutes. Now, for the first time since the referendum gave powers to this Parliament to do something for Aboriginal people around Australia, what we are being told is that we should look not to the aspirations and hopes of the Aboriginal people- God knows they are minimal enough-but that the standards on which this Parliament will determine the legitimacy of those hopes and aspirations will be determined by the National Farmers Federation or the miners. It must be heart rending for honourable gentlemen opposite who say that we should have done other things. They say we should have sought consensus and perhaps we should have had an inquiry. A very important inquiry is going on in Western Australia. I have said publicly and I say again that the Seaman's Aboriginal Land Inquiry is of tremendous relevance. Our duty is to try to get legislation on land rights properly based. We are waiting on the outcome of that inquiry. This is an inquiry of great relevance. How can I get consensus with the Opposition in Western Australia when representatives of honourable gentlemen opposite in the State Parliament of Western Australia have said that it does not matter what the inquiry finds, they are opposed to land rights? How do I get consensus when the Parliament of Victoria has said, very properly: 'We will try to go as far as we can with land rights'? What is the response of the National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia in Victoria? Their State conferences passed resolutions saying: 'We are implacably opposed to land rights and we will not consider it.' How do I get consensus with the Premier of Queensland when he says that land rights is really an attempt to establish bastions for overseas guerrillas operating around Australia? How do I get consensus when I hear the pious bleating from the honourable gentlemen opposite, who say: 'Oh, the time is not right'? The time will never be right as far as these people are concerned. In the final analysis, which one of them has stood up in this Parliament on this occasion and said: 'I dissociate myself from the statements of the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia and I deplore the statements of the Premier of Queensland'? Not one of them has done that. The obligation is put upon me, when we try to bring legislation into this House, to say: 'You must take it away. You must withdraw it. We need another 25 years.' Well, honourable members opposite are not going to have another 25 years. Let it be understood: The miners and the farmers might have stood over honourable members opposite, and the League of Rights might be campaigning and locking the National Party into impossibly racist positions, but that is their problem, it is not a problem for this Government. It is the honourable gentlemen opposite who have quoted their patron saint. There have been many injustices done to Aboriginal people, but I suggest it is an awful injustice and a terrible indictment to quote to the half-crazed ex- communist who is living on the income paid to him by the most racist organisation in Australia, the League of Rights. It has a reputation without parallel for anti-Semitism. What it has said about the Jewish people it is now saying with equal venom about Aboriginal people. Where is the one honourable member opposite who will say: 'I dissociate myself from that. I deplore it. I cast it out.'? No, it is dragged in here and given to us as an example of a document which we should consider deeply in formulating our position as a government in terms of the kinds of racist manifestations that are taking place in this community. I say to honourable members that I have sat down and listened. Very few organisations can get two and a half hours of the time of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). No Aboriginal organisation to date has got it, but the miners got it and the farmers have had more than a fair go. What did honourable members opposite do when they sat down with these people? The first thing they said was: 'We do not think the Commonwealth should be doing this, we think the States should be doing it.' When the States try to do it the very same people oppose it. Mr Howard —You know that Malcolm Fraser spent far more than two and a half hours with the Aborigines. Mr HOLDING —I concede that Malcolm Fraser spent a great deal of time considering these problems, and he had enough strength and enough guts to keep honourable gentlemen opposite in line on these issues. He did not walk away from the problems of South Africa. He did not allow some of the lunatic fringe now operating within the Party opposite to mouth the kind of nonsense that has been talked here tonight in terms of this legislation. Let me deal with some of the problems that have been posed. Mr Groom —What were you saying three or four years ago? Mr HOLDING —I realise the honourable member does not like Malcolm Fraser. He recognised the honourable member's talents and sacked him. He is not an admirer or a fan. We know that. Let us look at the legislation which will tear the nation in two. What does it propose to do? It contains three elements, all requested by the Aboriginal people of Australia. Let me say, by way of leading into this that one of the other things that I find slightly hypocritical about the attitude of the Opposition is that earlier this week I was contacted by the Chairman of the NAC who was somewhat upset because he had read about the policy that was formulated by the Opposition, those gentlemen opposite who tell me that I must consult. Mr Tuckey —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the Minister to return to the Bill. He is now getting on to the Opposition's policy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I listened to most of this debate and honourable members on both sides of the House ranged far and wide. Mr HOLDING —The Chairman of the NAC rang me to say that he was upset because he had read in the newspaper that the policy of the Opposition had been formulated at a party meeting and that there had been no reference to or discussion with the NAC or any Aboriginal body representing Aboriginal people in Australia. I said that I found that a bit difficult to believe, even knowing the reluctance of the shadow Minister to confirm. So in case there was some injustice being done to the honourable gentleman opposite by the Chairman of the NAC I had my staff inquire. What was the result of that inquiry? It confirmed that neither of the major land councils had been communicated with, no one on the executive of the National Aboriginal Conference at a State or a Federal level had been conferred with to seek the views of Aboriginal organisations and people on this legislation. There was one attempt at contact. The Northern Territory Sacred Sites Authority was telephoned by the research assistant of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) who asked whether there had been any consultation with the Authority. The answer was yes. The Authority was asked by the research assistant of the honourable member for Barker what its reaction was to the legislation. A representative said that he thought it was a valuable piece of legislation. He was asked by the research assistant whether he knew what the Northern Territory Government's reaction was to the legislation. The honourable member for Barker's research assistant was told that he had better direct that question to the Northern Territory authority. Tonight the Government and I have been lectured about consultation, as speaker after speaker got up to base his speech on the statements that have been made-mainly inaccurate statements-about this legislation by the mining companies and the farmers. Not one speaker got up and said that the policy position of the Opposition in respect of the first piece of Commonwealth legislation dealing with Aboriginal heritage was formulated as a result of discussions with Aboriginal people. In 1984 one would not believe it possible. But in 1984 that is the calibre of the Opposition. Opposition members have the gall to come in here and lecture about the need to consult. I have consulted with the farmers. I have consulted with the mining companies. I have listened to them ad nausaum but the Opposition which has listened to both organisations does not happen to have got around to talking to any of the Aboriginal organisations anywhere in Australia. Its members could not even pick up a telephone to make an appointment to inquire about the views of the Aboriginal people in regard to this legislation. If they had done so, they would have been told that Aboriginal people do not believe that this legislation goes far enough, but they are prepared to accept it as an interim measure until we get further down the track in developing the whole question of land rights. They are prepared to enter into debate and discussion with any of the representative groups who want to have an input into this area. Let me say this: Aboriginal leadership in Australia, whatever its imperfections and inadequacies, in terms of its approach to this legislation, has shown a sincerity, objectivity and awareness and a willingness to compromise which might well be emulated by some of the captains of industry and some of those who represent farmer groups in this country. The purpose of this legislation has been significantly wilfully and mischievously misrepresented. It is not land rights legislation. It is not even sites legislation. What it deals with is sites that are under threat, and I would be the first to concede-- Mr Tuckey —In your opinion. Mr HOLDING —No. If the honourable member read the legislation-- Mr Tuckey —I have read the legislation. Mr HOLDING —I realise the difficulties the honourable gentleman might have when it comes to dealing with matters of a legal nature. If he likes I will make available to him officers of my Department so that he understands the legislation. The legislation is designed to give the Commonwealth constitutional power, not to override the States on the whole question of the registering of sites. We are not into that business. What we are into is providing a mechanism when sites are under threat-- Mr Tuckey —Total power to you. Mr HOLDING —I will deal with that question-and there is no equivalent State legislation or the States are breaking their legislation, whereby the Commonwealth can intervene. That is all the legislation does and that is all it is designed to do. I do not accept the view of honourable members opposite in terms of the perception of Roxby Downs. But I do say this: It is strange that there was no mention of Noonkanbah. Mr Porter —That was not in your term. You referred to incidents in your term of government. Mr HOLDING —I have said that what we are dealing with is the question of sites under threat. Let us quickly recount the situation at Noonkanbah. The fact is that there was a site that was registered, which was known to be registered and which was protected by State law. The prevailing government directed the mining company to go in and mine and used the coercive power of the State to force that situation. The only means available to the Aboriginal people when that act of desecration was taking place were the trade union movement, members of the Christian church and the Aboriginal people themselves, who had to put their bodies in front of machines. I have not heard that situation deplored by one honourable member opposite. But I say this: When this legislation becomes law there will never be another Noonkanbah in Australia. That is what this legislation is all about. I say this to the mining companies: If the mining companies are prepared and concerned to follow the practices in which they say they believe, of consulting Aboriginal people, I do not see a single occasion when this legislation will be relevant to them where States have effective mechanisms as exist in the Territory, Western Australia and most States, this legislation will not be relevant. But what it does in the final analysis is to give to the Commonwealth in crisis situations such as occurred at Noonkanbah a legislative base either to go to the courts or to act in a way which can cool the situation and see that justice is done to all parties. That is the purpose of this legislation. I will be happy to address some of the other misunderstandings that have taken place in the speeches of honourable members opposite. There is a great deal of misunderstanding. Officers of the Department are available to help honourable members opposite understand the legislation. I ask honourable members to use them please. (Extension of time granted). There is one matter upon which I feel I should quickly address this House. It has been pointed out that this legislation gives enormous power to the Minister. Mr Tuckey —Not in Western Australia you don't. Mr HOLDING —In fact I have enormous power, not under this legislation but under the land rights legislation of the honourable member's Government. Honourable members opposite talk about having a discretion to confer vast tracts of land. That situation does not exist in respect of this legislation. Mr Porter —Do you have responsibility for the Northern Territory? Mr HOLDING —In respect of the land rights legislation, I have a discretion- Mr Porter —Do you for Western Australia? Mr HOLDING —No. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Will the honourable member for Barker- Mr Porter —Perhaps that is the difference. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member for Barker heed the Chair. Mr HOLDING —Under the legislation of the previous Government the discretion that I have is an unfettered discretion to act on the commissioner's report in respect of the granting of large areas of land which have been the subject of claims. The only basis upon which that can be challenged is through the judicial process. It is a very difficult operation, as countries that have tried it will tell us. The mechanism that this legislation will put in place for dealing with sites is as follows: First of all, the only sites that we are concerned to deal with are sites which are under immediate threat. If a watering place has been in existence on a farm and an Aboriginal group comes along and says 'We want you to declare that site', that is not on. It is not on because the site is not under threat. The obligation upon me when a site is under threat is to inquire from my State colleague whether that site is registered and protected under that State's law and whether he is aware of the threat, whatever it may be. If the answer is yes, the Commonwealth is not involved. It is as simple as that. If we become involved, if we are in a situation in which there is no effective law, I am compelled under this legislation-it is all set out there if honourable members opposite would only read it-to appoint someone to advise, to produce a report which addresses a whole range of interests, including the interests of any citizen who may be adversely affected. We have enlarged that provision in the amendment before the House. That report comes to me and if I believe that the site has to be declared I have to take the matter to cabinet and it is for the Cabinet to make a decision. Mr Ruddock —That is not in the Act. Mr HOLDING —No, but that is the process that has been decided upon and I want to record it. I have told the farmers and I have told-- Mr Tuckey —Well, put it in the Act. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member still would not vote for the Bill if I put it in. Then the report is laid on the table of both Houses so that any member can move that it be disallowed, so that the final determinant is not the Minister or the Government but the Parliament. Could there be a more conservative mechanism than that? Do the conservative gentlemen opposite, who all of a sudden are outraged by this situation, believe in the law which has operated in respect of the declaration of sites in the Northern Territory which are not subject to review by the Northern Territory Parliament? There was no complaint about that; that did not worry them. In Western Australia declarations of sites are made by the Governor-in-Council and are not subject to review by the State Parliament. That is not a matter of concern. In Tasmania the Minister may make a declaration under the Aboriginal Relics Act and the Minister's powers are not subject to any review by Parliament . That is in other State legislation and there is no problem. They do not feel anguished and they do not feel threatened. But when we produce a mechanism of registration which vests final say in the Parliament on the basis of documents that have to be made public, what do they say? They say: 'Not now; the time is not right; you have to have an inquiry and you have to get consensus'. What honourable members opposite are saying is palpably dishonest and hypocritical. It shows a complete lack of understanding of this legislation. Members of the Opposition have not consulted or sought the views of the Aboriginal people. They have not sought the advice of officers of the Department who could inform them on how the legislation is drafted and how it is to operate . They have regurgitated the views of the mining companies and the Australian Farmers Federation. They have said: 'That will do; that is near enough'. They are not considering seriously the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal people. I know that there are many honourable members opposite who are genuinely concerned . I hope that when this Bill is dealt with during the Committee stage tomorrow the kind of examination and the kind of responsible criticism which I would hope to see in respect of a piece of legislation that is sensitive will emerge from the Opposition. It has not, unfortunately, emerged during the course of this debate. Let me finish on this note. Unfortunately there is occurring in this society at the present time a backlash directed against Aboriginal people, just as there is a backlash against Asian immigration-and that is something which this Government is prepared to do something about and act upon. The gentlemen opposite have become so desperate in their overall political plight that they do not want to get too close to these issues but they are happy to climb on the bandwagon and pick up a few votes. Statistics show that Aboriginal people are still the most neglected and dispossessed group in this community and the propositions in this legislation- Mr Tuckey —This Bill will do a lot for them! It does nothing for them. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member would not know because he does not talk to them. His social relationship with Aboriginal people is much more limited than that. The reality of this situation is that, in the face of a co-ordinated campaign of misrepresentation run by people who are closely allied to honourable gentlemen opposite, basically they are saying that they are opposed to land rights per se. That is the basic position as it has emerged, for example, with the Liberal Party in Western Australia. That is the position that has emerged in the advertisements of the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia (Inc.). They are entitled to that position. This legislation has become a question of political resolution and political will. We have listened to the views of farmers and we have listened to the views of miners, and we will go on doing that. But in the final analysis the time has come when we have to take the first steps to use the constitutional powers that are vested in this Parliament to realise the rights, the hopes and the aspirations of the Aboriginal people of Australia. That is an obligation that this Government has accepted. Despite the pressures and despite the misrepresentations, that is an obligation that this Government intends to discharge. Mr PORTER(Barker) —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 PORTER —I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PORTER —I shall be very brief given the lateness of the hour. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) suggested and made great play of the suggestion that I had not obtained the views of the Aboriginal communities or Aboriginal organisations. I have only some of the information with me here at the table, but I have copy of a telex from the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress in relation to its views, the Central Land Council, whose views are well known and the National Aboriginal Conference, whose views, especially those of Ossie Cruse are well known. I have another telex from five Aboriginal communities. It says: The Bill was drawn up in secret and Aboriginal people have had no opportunity to discuss it. There appear to be no procedures or standards by which claims are to be judged, especially when there are potentially conflicting Aboriginal interests. The Minister seems to have absolute power over Aboriginal matters and can delegate the powers at his discretion. We are very concerned that there are people to whom these powers may be given that will abuse these powers. The telex contains another message to myself. Mr Holding —I ask the honourable gentleman to table the document from which he quoted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no provision within the Standing Orders for the honourable gentleman to have to table the document. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 (Short title). Progress reported. House adjourned at 1.43 a.m. (Friday). The following notice was given: Mr Cadman to move- That this House- (1) draws to the attention of Government Members the circular from the Leader of the House requesting their attendance last night after 8 p.m., to ''avoid a repetition of a lack . . . of a quorum'', and (2) condemns the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce for ignoring the circular and, by his absence, preventing debate taking place on the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1984. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 31 May 1984: Liquid Fuel Emergency Act-Guidelines-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 Public Service Act-Appointment-Australian War Memorial-James D.H.S. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 30 May 1984 States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment of the schedule to the subsidy schemes in relation to the State of New South Wales, dated 23 May 1984 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1036) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to Professors World Peace Academy of Australia Ltd (PWPA) and its paid or voluntary young helpers including American Moonies. (2) Can he state whether the Unificationist Movement of Rev. Sun Myung Moon is funding the Australian chapter, has links with the US and South Korean CIA's, uses dubious fundraising and brainwashing techniques, and sponsors academic conferences and organisations. (3) Is he able to say whether the 1st PWPA annual conference on interdisciplinary approaches to peace, in Sydney in late August 1983, (a) claimed to offer coverage of all viewpoints, (b) gave prominence to 'peace through strength' (deadlier weapons) as a way to peace among its speakers and the audience of some 40 invitees and (c) identified the main threats to peace as the Soviet Union and the broader peace movement. (4) Will he consult with his colleagues with a view to having Australian security organisations monitor PWPA activities as closely as they do peace movements which identify major threats to peace such as the superpower arms race and the international armaments industry. (5) Will he consult with the Ministers for Defence, Health, Employment and Industrial Relations, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Education and Youth Affairs and Communications to increase government involvement in informing Australians of statistics of military expenditure and activities, world poverty and political persecution, and of proposals for overcoming the apathy, inertia, ineffectiveness and irrelevance of the United Nations Charter organs and declarations in achieving the minimum requirement of enforceable peace-keeping based on persuasion of world citizens that this is more important than the national military sovereignty which is enshrined in the Charter and which is the essential cause of all wars. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. (3) No. (4) It is Government policy not to comment on security matters. My concern in relation to members of the peace movement is to develop a dialogue with them on the questions of peace, arms control and disarmament. (5) The Government makes information available on the issues mentioned by Dr Everingham through a variety of its publications. It does not share the view that the UN Charter and declarations are irrelevant. (Question No. 1204) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: Does his interview reported in The Financial Review of 28 February 1984 indicate that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is favoured by the Government for radiated subscription television (RSTV) services. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The report in The Financial Review of 28 February 1984, to which the honourable member refers, reflected my view that the ABC has now addressed the issue of RSTV in great detail and is well prepared to put its case. However, I also stressed that the Government had not yet decided whether to proceed with RSTV; nor has it yet adopted an attitude regarding participation by the ABC. (Question No. 1221) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: Has the Manager of Australia Post for New South Wales been able to explain satisfactorily to Speedy Wheels Australia Pty Ltd why a letter postmarked Melbourne 2 March 1984 was not delivered in Sydney until 8 March 1984; if so, what was the explanation) if not, when will this be done. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: Speedy Wheels Australia Pty Ltd wrote to Australia Post's New South Wales administration concerning the delayed delivery of a mail article bearing a franking impression* (not a postmark) dated 2 March 1984. Australia Post's New South Wales administration responded to the Speedy Wheels Australia Pty Ltd complaint on 10 April 1984, and apologised for the delay in delivery of the letter. In essence, the response covered the following points: Australia Post's inquiries into the delayed delivery of the letter were inconclusive; because of the volume of mail processed daily it is impracticable to record the movement of individual ordinary mail articles during their progress through the post. It is generally not possible, therefore, to identify the point or points of delay in delivery of an ordinary mail article; staff shortages and abnormally heavy volumes of mail at the State mail centre and southern region mail centres, through which the article would have circulated, at about the time of posting caused delays in processing of mail and this would have contributed to the delayed delivery of the letter. Australia Post is aware that delays in the delivery of mail, such as that experienced by Speedy Wheels, cause considerable difficulties for customers. Significant resources are being devoted to resolving the mail service problems in New South Wales. *(Note: Franked impressions are made by franking machines located in private offices. Such mail may be posted other than on the date appearing on the franked impression. Australia Post has no reason to believe that in this case the letter was not posted on the date franked.) (Question No. 1224) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: What were the running costs for Australian National Line's (a) Allunga and (b) Paralla for (i) crew, (ii) stores, (iii) insurance, (iv) repairs, (v) administration and (vi) other, for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information sought is commercial in nature, and I believe it would be more appropriate to seek such information from the owners or operators of the ships. (Question No. 1225) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) What repairs, if any, are carried out by crew members of Australian National Line ships while at sea. (2) Is he able to say whether, on comparable vessels of other flags (excluding flags of convenience), crew members undertake repairs as part of their on-going duties. (3) Do crews on Australian flag vessels carry out similar duties; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian National Line has stated that the following repairs and maintenance are carried out by Australian crews: Engine room maintenance, auxiliary and electrical, machinery maintenance, upkeep of deck mechanical, electrical and hydraulic machinery and life saving equipment. Descaling and painting of decks, hull and superstructure are undertaken. Cargo equipment such as refrigerated containers and cargo handling equipment, cranes, fork lift trucks, etc, are maintained. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (Question No. 1396) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1984: Does the Government intend to establish a post in Montevideo, Uruguay, to assist the processing of applications for migration to Australia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government has no plans to establish a post in Montevideo, Uruguay to assist the processing of applications for migration to Australia. Migration matters are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and his Department has advised that all migration matters in Uruguay are being adequately handled by migration officers in Buenos Aires.